Misplaced Pages

View by Buster7

User:MastCell calls it "our basic pact with our reader". Our reader/visitor/researcher is unaware of any off-wiki committment to a third party or single-minded mindset. Our reader is unaware if the article has been orchestrated, cajoled, manipulted into shape by editors with ulterior motives. Making mortgage payments over-rides keeping WP rules. Transparency. One of our favorite concepts. Keep everything above board and in sight. A Political Campaign can put together a large team of specialists for extensive editorial input. Our reader thinks it is created by the teamwork of Volunteers. No warts allowed. No blemishes without make-up. No bad history permitted.

Proposition

..1)that the {[request tag}} be Required rather than just strongly suggested. No punishment if not adhered to. Stop sign----->most people stop. 2) That a timed discussion of some reasonable duration take place if editing is done by proxy. No discussion, no inclusion of the requested info.

Support

Oppose

1. Unenforceable. Only penalizes the honest. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Meaningless. If you are required to use something, then your refusal to use it must have consequences. Otherwise, it's not actually required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment

1. I'm generally supportive of using Talk pages, request edit, AfC, boards, etc. for anyone with a compelling POV/COI/bias that's relevant to the section they're editing. There needing to be some refinement about the types of paid editing that typically have a "compelling" COI, grammatical changes and so on. King4057 (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
2. A requirement is self-enforceble. We dont need someone to enforce line etiquette at the grocery store. There is no penalty suggested for honest editing. The good guys will honor it because they are good guys and those that do not honor a required rather than just strongly suggested COI can be reminded that they have committed a breech. No COI Police required. It gives editors editing alongside a place to point. "Hey! Political Operative. Did you see the sign? You were suppossed to do such and such!" And, "you proxies were not suppossed to do this and that".This exact circumstance exists at campaign articles currently "manicurred" by paid political operatives. The ppo makes a lengthy, multi-tiered suggestion and, without a single word of discussion, his request is implemented, by a proxy, in just over three hours. (Diffs available)```Buster Seven Talk 08:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Per WhatamIdoing, what you seem to be describing is a suggestion, not a requirement. "Self-enforceable" rules are rules in name only; voluntary compliance often means no compliance at all (think about corporate polluters being asked to police their own emissions). As in the larger world, at Misplaced Pages the really good guys will be aboveboard and honest even without suggestions, the really bad guys will behave horribly even with requirements, and for the in-betweens we have a serviceable guideline right now that just needs a bit of work. Rivertorch (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Observations

1. Lets assume I wanted to hire someone to write a resume. I would want someone who is a wordsmith, adept at the subtleties of word manipulation. Someone able to hide the truthful facts of my frailties. Someone who can make the sun shine during a rainstorm. I would want my resume to highlight all the good points of my life and to barely, if at all, mention the low points. If my terrible grades as a freshman are mentioned, they might be explained as Freshman adjustment. The sordid event and arrest resulting from "The Sorority Incident" could be passed off as a "childish prank". Since my lawyer promised that the record was expunged, there is no real need to even mention the event. The fact that I attended maybe 10% of my classes is slander and anyway, how is that pertinent, and who is gonna prove it!. I got my degree did I not? What I want, what I am paying the resume writer to do, is to make me look like a $10000 tuxedo. The fact that I usually run around in sandals and shorts is unimportant. He gets paid to make me look good, even if I don't. He is paid to hide my blemishes, my warts, my scars. His job is to get me THE JOB. I don't pay him to worry about following "The Rules". And, I am certainly not paying him to worry about the reader of the resume. The reader is completely unimportant except for how the reader can be manipulated. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

View by Elen of the Roads

The problem with the current guideline is that it uses the same term (COI) to cover

• "a situation where a conflict of interest might arise",
• "editing to support whatever you have an interest in that might give rise to a conflict of interest" and
• "editing against the interests of the encyclopaedia to support other interests"

Editors who take money to write a Misplaced Pages article (directly or because they work for a PR agency) appear to be a low number.

Editors who have some other 'vested interest' - ie an interest related to money or reputation - are probably higher, but fall into at least three groups: the guy who owns Joe's Pizzeria and thinks it should have an article, the Microsoft intern who has been told to keep an eye on Microsoft articles, and Professor Elk who has dedicated an academic career to studying the Bambisaurus, and wants to see his research represented properly in Misplaced Pages.

Then we get editors whose interest is ideological, and sufficiently powerful to affect other aspects of their life (they volunteer to work for Mitt Romney, they join a direct action group against animal testing).

And lastly, we have the people who edit against the interests of the encyclopaedia to support nationalism, football teams, controversial subjects that they hold a view about, pseudoscientific theories, things that the government is covering up, things that the aliens are covering up....etc

The question is - what's the line. When do you cross it? When you revert vandalism on Windows 7. When you don't declare that you are Professor Elk? When you edit articles on cosmetic companies to include information on whether they use animal testing? When you write an article for your client that is factual but leaves out the lawsuit that cost them $20m to settle. When you edit war to exclude a source because the author is Italian?

The guideline needs to exist, to be part of the "how to edit" section, to not focus excessively on the editor, and to be clear that the problem is not working for Acme PR,being Prof Elk or having a lifelong interest in debunking astrology. It is breaching the contract with the reader that articles will be fair, balanced, neutral, give due weight to all the current thinking.

Support

1. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Yes, WP:COI is useful guidance for editing with a COI and for working with editors who appear to have a COI and are having difficulty maintaining neutrality. Jojalozzo 21:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Agree. Addressing ASCIIn2Bme's comment below: Editors may (or may not) have conflicts of interest; their edits, however, must not (as much as is humanly possible). Miniapolis (talk) 03:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
4. A good way of highlighting that the "paid editing is bad!" crowd just don't have a scalable way to address the nuances of COI, nor any way to single out paid editing other than the assumption that money is everyone's driving force (which itself ignores Maslow's Hierarchy, but whatever) and somehow of a different sort than all the other -isms that motivate people. Since I serve with Elen on the Arbitration Committee at present, I have an inside view of how disruptive these -isms can be to the project in a way that few other editors can match. Jclemens (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
5. --JN466 05:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
6. --Cailil 16:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
7. This seems to be a reasonable proposal. Cla68 (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
8. Appropriately nuanced view. Perhaps WP:COI needs to give a better break down of the types of COI editors and what each needs to look out for.
9. --FormerIP (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

1. I was writing an oppose, and then found I had actually nothing to oppose .. but also nothing to support. This guideline needs to exist, just because of the different types of COI .. whether it is with a situation where a conflict of interest may arise, whether it is editing to support a topic that might give you a conflict of interest, or whether it is actually editing against the interests of the encyclopedia. in a nutshell: "Do not edit Misplaced Pages to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers. Do not write about these things unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits improve Misplaced Pages." (WP:COI). The lines are the 5P, this is a guide to tell you how to handle a part of that, and how to avoid the impropriety. --Dirk Beetstra 12:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
2. One one hand WP:COI talks right in its nutshell about this mythical "neutral editor" that has agree with the edits of the COI bastard. On the other hand, people supporting the guideline freely acknowledge some sections above that no editor is unbiased. What gives? Hypocrisy. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

   No, ASCIIn2Bme, that is a misinterpretation, no hypocrisy anywhere. What is said above is that every editor has somewhere a conflict of interest. In other fields that editor does not have any conflict of interest, and in that field, that editor is a neutral editor. That is also true the other way around, another editor has a conflict of interest in another area, but not in the area of the first editor, and hence is there a neutral editor. The first editor should edit in his field in a way, so that the other, neutral editor, would agree with that. And that someone has a conflict of interest, does not make him a bastard, there is no need for that language. --Dirk Beetstra 13:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

   I'd actually like to see who where 'freely acknowledge some sections above that no editor is unbiased'? --Dirk Beetstra 13:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

3. I wish I could agree, Elen; but it seems to me that spammers are the most persistent new editors nowadays; see my comment above in "View by ASCIIn2Bme" about doing New Page patrol. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

   Spammers are a problem, but spamming is often a very simply defined COI - the user is editing ONLY to promote Joe's Pizzeria. In many ways, that's the easiest to deal with. The only concern is whether you can persuade Joe's neice (who wrote the article) to stay and edit other articles. I unblocked User:Jeff Bedford and a couple of his colleages (who had been blocked as socks of each other because they were all editing on the office IP), and they have been a really good resource *even though* they work for a PR firm, because they understand COI and when it might cause a problem eg here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

4. Most of what you say is on target, but the last paragraph downplays the near inevitability of certain types of COI: "working for Acme PR" is almost certainly going to be a problem because Acme PR isn't paying anyone to follow WP:NPOV but rather to make their clients look good. Rivertorch (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
5. I agree that the language is used too loosely in referring both to having an interest and acting improperly on that interest. I also agree that the focus needs to be on editing from a neutral point of view, but there is no way not to make this about the editor – it is all about where they are coming from. First and foremost, the world at large clearly recognizes that conflict of interest compromises neutrality, and editors need to recognize this about themselves. Secondly, the community needs to deal with POV regardless of the underlying motivations, and voluntary disclosure of personal interest can help to sort out points of view in a collegial manner. Thirdly, when it becomes apparent that conflict of interest underlies a pattern of improper editing, it is an important consideration for distinguishing between an editor who made some mistakes and one who is not in a position to uphold the second pillar of Misplaced Pages. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
6. Seems reasonable, but if the guideline is to stay it would need a major overhaul and preferably, simplification. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

View from a Paid COI Editor

Proposal: Change nothing.

Rationale:

1. Many of the proposals here are on-target, but are also supported by current policy
2. Users witch-hunting paid editors can already be warned of Outing
3. COI editors are already encouraged to use Talk Pages, COIN and the request edit feature
4. It already is the quality of contributions not the identity of the editor that counts
5. Yet current policy does support disclosure which can be a best practice when disclosure isn't overly personal
6. No policy changes are required to implement most of the proposals here
7. COIN and the COI guideline helps resolve issues, educate editors and provide advice to a group of editors likely to break content rules

The examples shared throughout these proposals aren't justification for policy changes, but for more education and enforcement of current policy. I would be interested in ideas on how we can do a better job (a) discouraging bad edits (b) improving mediocre edits (c) encouraging excellent edits from COI editors using current policies and guidelines.

Disclosure: As a (often) paid COI editor (see here) I have a conflict of interest with this entire subject. I also believe that my real-world experiences on this subject gives me a unique perspective on what goes on at companies around this topic. King4057 (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Disagree. Something clearly needs to change, the guidelines right now are apparently useless. -- Maelefique 04:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Absolutely. Inaction will not remedy the absurd situation on, for example, the Newt Gingrich-related articles where the edit requests of NG's communications director, who follows WP:COI guidelines to the fullest possible extent - which includes limiting himself to edit requests at the talk pages - are unilaterally reviewed, approved and implemented by a proxy who is also a COI editor (his self-disclosure appears to be limited to the guidelines' "strongly recommended" COI template at the top of the talk pages), and who evidently has no wish to follow the "edit request" guideline. The practice neatly circumvents the guideline and the result is exactly as if the communications director made the edits directly (when in fact he is at pains not to). Surely the tiger needs at least one tooth. Writegeist (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
3. 100% Agree w/ Editor Writegeist. It was only thru constant cajoling that the NG articles maintained some modicum of transparency. Without COI, the in-good-faith CommDir would not have stepped forward, would not have self-identified in his signature, his vassals would have done his bidding within minutes of his requisition and any complaints would have amounted to the bleating of sheep. At least the COI guideline provided some instruction and a point of reference. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
4. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
5. Oppose. "Do nothing" is not really an option. The Arbitration Committee has clearly indicated that it is difficult to discharge their duty to apply the present policies and guidelines. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• "Change nothing" overstates things a bit... There does need to be explicit clarification to policy on the matter of paid editing — although that might be as simple as adding a few lines making explicit that the business relationship is not itself a bannable offense SO LONG AS: (1) COI declarations are made to talk pages; (2) Actual editing output conforms with NPOV and that there is no clear spamming taking place. But, in essence, existing COI rules are pretty close to the mark, if refined and made explicit. Carrite (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  Carrite - what you propose is already in the COI guideline - hence "change nothing". Rklawton (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, the part about a (paid) business relationship not being an automatically bannable offense isn't that explicit in the guideline, otherwise there would have been no Jimmy Wales ban and ten weeks of TimidGuy at ArbCom. I think at some point here were should look at a line-by-line review and clarification of the formal COI guidelines... Carrite (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I would support adding something along the lines of Jimbo's bright line: "paid editors such as public relations professionals, expert Wikipedians for hire, subjects of autobiographies and others with a financial conflict of interest are encouraged to stick to Talk Pages, noticeboards and request edits." This is pretty minor compared to some of the suggestions here. Statistically I would gander more bad COI editors are born from not reading policy at all than from problems with the policy/guidelines themselves. So instead of asking "how can we improve policy" my question is "how can we get more COIs to read it." King4057 (talk) 06:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Things may need clarification, but I think that that can be done on WT:COI, we don't need an RfC for that per sé. It is clear that there is something that needs discussion, that for sure. --Dirk Beetstra 07:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• As a frequent member of WP:AFD discussions I have pretty opposite observations. WP:COI is mainly used to "tag" editor's opinion as the one to discard, and there are case when this approach works just fine. That said, editors concerned with their COI can use all the aforementioned instruments without any policy saying that, and all the rest COI editors won't anyway, so this policy is already dead. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • It appears the COI guideline already instructs editors with a Financial COI to use the request edit template. Abusing policies to discredit opposing views certainly isn't supported by current policy either, so I think these issues both have to do with enforcement. King4057 (talk) 08:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Sure, but it by far easier to demote useless policy then to deal with consequences of its existence. There are no benefits of keeping it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

View by Carrite

Proposal: 1. Make explicit a requirement for paid COI editors to make talk page declarations of their conflict of interest. 2. Make explicit the permissibility (albeit discouraged) of paid COI editors making contributions so long as COI is formally declared on each and every talk page and WP:NPOV is maintained.

Rationale:

If there is a lesson of the TimidGuy case, it is that there is a right way and a wrong way to do COI editing at WP — assuming that our warnings that such editing is often times a BAD idea are not heeded. We need to make formal the requirement of paid editors to declare COI and to make clear that those following this policy and adhering to the tone and spirit of the Misplaced Pages project will not be persecuted for having made such declarations.

The relevant section needing to be formally addressed is: WP:Conflict_of_interest#Declaring_an_interest.

Rather than proposing formal language, I will leave this as an open-ended statement of what actually needs to be done here. Carrite (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. - as proposer. Carrite (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
2. strongly agree with this.--В и к и T 22:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Agree. The status quo isn't working. Miniapolis (talk) 03:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
4. Agree. This makes a lot of sense (which unfortunately means it will be close to a miracle if it gets implemented!). -- Maelefique 04:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
5. Support. Declaration followed by caution and common sense. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
6. Support. While I recognize the apparent contradiction with the way we handle those with other forms of COI, this is one type of COI we can deal with in this manner. DGG ( talk ) 07:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
7. Support especially per Fred Bauder, DGG, and Carrite. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
8. Support This will give clear guidance to a special class of COI editors. One thing to figure out is what 'paid' covers. For example, if I work for a non-profit or government, am I considered paid? What if I own the company I'm writing about. 'Paid' might have to be expanded to 'paid to edit, employed by or financially affiliated with the subject' or somesuch. Ocaasi 12:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. That would not be helpful. If edits by a contributor with a COI are productive (neutral, verifiable, etc.), a declaration of the COI is of no benefit to readers or editors. If the edits are not productive, they can and should be reverted (and the contributor possibly sanctioned) on that basis alone, and the declaration of the COI is likewise of no additional benefit. Moreover, COI contributors who are willing to disobey Misplaced Pages's rules by making problematic contributions are likely to also disregard any requirement to declare their COI.  Sandstein  00:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Enforcing such a requirement would be unworkable. Any efforts to police and investigate violations of this requirement would be harassment in and of itself, and would likely have to include off-wiki investigations. First Light (talk) 21:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Per Sandstein. It penalizes the honest, making them call out "Unclean!" wherever they go, but allowing the dishonest free rein. Jclemens (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose unless we require similar disclosure for potentially highly biased editors for ideological reasons including nationalism, religious fundamentalism, etc. Those inclinations often create a conflict of interest with respect to NPOV of comparable intensity. I don't have firm numbers, but I have the impression that many more of those were banned by ArbCom than financially-tied editors, so they are a bigger problem for Misplaced Pages. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
5. Oppose as unenforceable because it is fundamentally incompatible with a venue where registration and identification are optional. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Partial support

1. Per Rivertorch's second caveat below, I think it would be good to require those receiving financial support for Misplaced Pages work to disclose that support on their main user page, only. There should be a standard template for it, in a standard position (e.g. end of the page) which puts them into a category. This is so for any sort of financial support, and only financial support. It would be up to others to decide what they think about the conflict of interest - often it might indeed be innocuous. This, to me, seems in line with the standard disclosure statements now included on many biomedical research papers. It is true that people could ignore that, but the point is, doing so would create a risk of an actual scandal rather than a debate. The organization funding these editors, realizing the chance for a scandal if multiple editors of theirs weren't declaring, would probably set their own policy to declare the conflict of interest and monitor their user's pages to verify it is being done. While the category clearly has potential to be abused as a scarlet-letter status, we could also as a community decide to set up a periodic audit mechanism by which the contributions of editors can be evaluated in the light of their disclosed COI, especially during their first month of editing or COI, and passed as being within Misplaced Pages guidelines. Wnt (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

1. I don't see how disclosing a COI would have no benefit to readers or editors; it would be useful in helping to determine whether any POV was intentional or not. However, I acknowledge the problem of dealing with editors determined to disregard policy (NPOV) and guidelines (COI). Miniapolis (talk) 03:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
2. @Sandstein: If a paid COI editor is completely neutral on a topic, I would suggest one of two things:

1. He is very bad at his job because *anyone* could do that
2. His job is unnecessary because there is nothing negative to say (in which case, what would they be paying him for?)

Either way, he wouldn't have a COI (or a job!) so I don't think that's a fully thought out idea yet. Additionally, if it was made a requirement, and was found to have violated that requirement, WP would at least have a place to start with sanctions, instead of the case now, where it's been proven ppl have a COI's, and it's still all "ya, but..." etc. -- Maelefique 04:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You assume that the job of paid COI editors is to write non-neutral content and that they will therefore always do so. If so, that would be an argument to forbid paid COI editing altogether, not only to require COI declaration. But I do not think that this assumption is correct, because a smart COI editor will know that he is likely to be blocked or his additions reverted if they are promotional, whereas they are more likely to persist if they are not. Also, an organization may well have an interest in being covered in a neutral manner on Misplaced Pages, if the practical alternative is being covered not at all (WP:CSD#G11). Moreover, not all organizations even have something verifiably and notably negative to say about them. In this case, a paid COI editor would do their job, and benefit Misplaced Pages, by writing about their employer neutrally. (In the admittedly more frequent case where they would simply be promoting their employer, they can and should be reverted and eventually blocked.)  Sandstein  07:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a paid COI editor. Even with a topic as narrow as COI paid editing, there is a broad spectrum. Many edits from Edelman's IP address were basic grammatical fixes and wikification. Do they have to disclose for those? Volunteer editors are routinely accused of being paid COI editors and this sounds like an opportunity to fuel the witch hunt for Outing volunteers. However, I would support it with the caveats that (a) the policy can only be enforced when the paid COI identity of the user is confirmed based on edit history AND a check user that confirms the IP address and (b) it doesn't apply to reverting vandalism, grammar, etc. It would be silly to ban a user for correcting a comma undisclosed. King4057 (talk) 06:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Maelefique, I wonder what you think of the paid editors hired for the WP:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project. Their job was to assist with a charitable translation project by improving some medicine-related articles before the Google Foundation paid for professional translation of the articles into other Wikipedias. Their work was generally quite good, and they were particularly strong on finding a neutral balance. Are you going to label them as "incompetent" since they didn't have an axe to grind? Perhaps you think them "unnecessary", since the Google Foundation could have paid for translations of lower quality articles? Or is the world of paid editors perhaps just a little bigger than you thought it was? (The Google Foundation is not the only charitable outfit that's paid people to improve content without pushing a POV or promoting a particular organization.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• My personal opinion on the TimidGuy case is that the principle remedy of the case would have saved everyone a great deal of grief if it had only been carried out four and a half years ago. So I suppose I read it more along the line that COI/N and related accusations have tended in practice to be more abusive than fruitful. Mangoe (talk) 14:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

My personal opinion on the TimidGuy case is that everyone would have been saved a great deal of grief of TimidGuy had done what he was told to do nearly 5 years ago at COIN by the closing administrator:

Durova posted: "TimidGuy has a clear and immediate conflict of interest and for this reason would be well advised to restrict participation to talk pages for all transcendental meditation-related articles."

Given that this is the Conflict of interest noticeboard, a response like "Not sure why you're making this point" is not straightforward and intelligent. This section is about editors, you for example, and in fact you in particular, with, yes, clear and immediate conflict of interest issues which it would behoove you to take seriously....

Misplaced Pages does not need another ream of paragraphs out of you, it needs you editing neutrally or not at all. No more long diatribes, no more changing the subject, no more disingenuity and smokescreens, capisce?

This section alone is already over 56 kilobytes. Enough, already. — Athænara ✉ 05:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Had TimidGuy actually followed those clear instructions, or if Athænara and other admins been been given the tools to make it mandatory, this would have come to a quick halt 5 years ago, long before WillBeback make the mistake, two years later of picking up that Tarbaby at another COIN discussion of why TimidGuy hadn't following the warning he had gotten in 2007. Fladrif (talk) 16:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

So the solution is for editors with a COI to stay second class editors forever? Jclemens (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Within the scope of their conflict, they should be limited to talk pages only. At the very least, the closing administrators at COIN should, after a problem as arisen, be able to mandate that they limit themselves to talk pages only, and be able to enforce that with a block, if necessary. Outside of the area of conflict, they can edit article mainspace like anybody else. So, no, they are not second class editors - everyone plays by the same rules, and those rules should include "don't edit in article mainspace where you have a conflict of interest". In effect, it cuts the B and the R out of BRD for editors with a conflict, and sends them straight to Discuss. I see no problem with that whatsoever, and I am absolutely convinced that ArbCom would have been saved dozens of Arbitration cases and hundreds of AE cases every year is that was formal policy. Fladrif (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If we're willing to do this to all editors who demonstrate POV editing, not just those who admit they are being paid to edit Misplaced Pages, I'd be more favorable to the idea. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd be OK with that. Fladrif (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Fladrif is the above exchange covered more or less in your view below? Or will you set it up as a proposal? Babakathy (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

More or less. As the discussion continues, I'll probably draft a formal alternative proposal to incorporate the various tweaks that seem to be gathering some support, but I want to hold off lest the discussion get too confused. Fladrif (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I could support this with two modifications. First, disclosure should only be required if the community has determined there is likely a problem. (I guess that would mean a thread at COIN closed with a finding of a "likely problem".) Second, disclosure on user page should suffice; pasting boilerplate onto every talk page would be onerous to the editor, tiresome for everyone else, and should only be required if a legitimate challenge is made to one or more edits on NPOV grounds and the editor wishes to defend such edits or make similar ones at at the articles in question. I have to admit that enforcement sounds like a nightmare, though, and I'm not clear this could be required without upgrading guideline to policy, which I've opposed elsewhere on this page. Rivertorch (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

View by Fladrif

Proposal

WP:COI upgraded to a policy from a guideline. Editors with a conflict of interest as defined in WP:COI are required to declare on their userpage that they have a conflict of interest and the scope of the subject matter where they have a conflict of interest. Editors are not, however, required to state their real-world identity nor to disclose what real-world circumstance creates the conflict of interest. (eg an editor would not need to disclose that they are an officer, director, employee or agent of a company or an organization, that they were the subject of or a relative of a BLP subject, that they are litigant in a lawsuit etc... simply that they had a conflict of interest with respect to the subject matter) Within the scope of the conflict of interest, editors are prohibited from editing article mainspace, but must confine their posting to talkpages. There they may suggest changes to article content and attempt to persuade other editors to a consensus. WP:COIN would continue its current function, but uninvolved Administrators would be specifically authorized to impose blocks for violations of WP:COI.

Rationale

The nature of COI is inherently that the editor is attempting to serve two masters. The best-intentioned editors will have difficulty in resolving that conflict in favor of Misplaced Pages's requirements if, notwithstanding their conflict, they are permitted to edit in article mainspace in areas where they have such a conflict. Others will simply find it impossible. By requiring both (i) a declaration of COI by editors without requiring that they disclose their real-life identity or the precise nature of the conflict and (ii) that, within the scope of the conflict, they may not edit article mainspace, but confine their editing to talkpages, will drastically reduce the impulse to non-neutral editing and conflict. The current guideline strongly urges these things; making it mandatory and giving COIN authority to enforce it is necessary step. Will some editors ignore or be oblivious to these requirements, particularly the declaration of COI? Of course. Just like some editors are oblivious to or ignore lots of other requirements at Misplaced Pages and in real life. In those cases, the manner of enforcement becomes tricky where identifying the COI of an editor is tied up in real-life circumstances and identities, but a process for private, non-public submission of information could be implemented to minimize issues with WP:Outing Will some editors with COI be tendentious, use sockpuppets and meatpuppets, assume bad faith, and do other horrible things on talkpages in a misguided attempt to persuade, bully or force consensus to what they are advocating to add or delete from mainspace? Of course. Misplaced Pages already has processes in place to deal with all of that, imperfect as they may be.

Support

1. As proposer. Fladrif (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Mixed. I support that admins in COIN be given the authority to tell editors to stay on the Talk page when a COI editor has been disruptive. This would greatly increase the likelihood of a more positive interaction and decrease editing wars, escalation and other issues. Disclosure: I am myself (often) a paid COI. King4057 (talk) 07:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Not sure to fully upgrade it to policy, but I do like the idea that if an editor with a known COI has been disruptive in his area, that they then can be forced to the talkpage. That allows editing with a conflict of interest, as long as one does not disrupt the subject to one certain POV. Let WP:NPOV handle single cases of non-neutrality, WP:COI the whole topic of a coi editor, even if they have just been disruptive on one page in that topic. The maximum WP:COI is then allowed to do is to confine an editor to talkspace (with the usual exceptions of vandalism reverts). --Dirk Beetstra 08:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
4. and see comment. Babakathy (talk) 16:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
5. Support. Gives a safe harbor to ethical public relations professionals. I do think some editing of content such as correcting simple errors of fact and removing defamatory material should be permitted. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
6. Exactly. They are not paid by Misplaced Pages to adhere to the rules. They are paid by someone to make sure they (someone) look good. And if they bend the rules to do it at least they can say they tried and still get their paycheck. 'Cause it's the Pay that gets in the way. ```Buster Seven Talk 08:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
7. Support, per Buster7.--В и к и T 12:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
8. Per Buster7. Writegeist (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
9. Prefer this over alt1. Ordering a pseudonymous editor to make a user page disclosure seems like a bad idea. Prefer voluntary disclosure which invites transparency and independent review for neutrality. Kilopi (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
10. Support rewriting COI and promoting to policy. I wouldn't support requiring editors to declare their COIs on their user pages; if they stay away from articles where they have a COI, there's no problem. But if they want to have input into those articles, they should declare their COI on talk, and confine their input to talk. That is mostly how things have been handled in the past, at least when people have been honest. It works well, in that Misplaced Pages benefits from their suggestions, but volunteers are not required to fix or monitor COI articles because no actual edits have been made. SlimVirgin 02:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
11. Support per Buster 7 and SlimVirgin. Gandydancer (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
12. Support per all of the above. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
13. Support. I don't think this is necessarily a total solution, but it would be a positive step. I don't accept the objection that it is unenforceable. It's enforceable in cases where we know about the COI. The law against burglary in unenforceable if there is no evidence against the burglar, but that doesn't make it a pointless law. --FormerIP (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This would not be helpful. As mentioned above, COI is but one possible reason for bad contributions, and not all who have a COI make bad contributions. In consequence of this proposal, we would also need to require the declaration of other biases, which could not be implemented. It follows that we need to focus on and prevent edits that are actually problematic, not contributors whose future edits merely may be problematic.  Sandstein  00:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Oppose, because we need to "Focus on the edits, not the editor." Even if WP:COI were rewritten to reflect actual practice on Misplaced Pages, it should still be a behavioral guideline. Misplaced Pages has no authority or policing mechanism for investigating people to see if they have a conflict of interest. The only way to determine that is to focus on the edits, ....... First Light (talk) 02:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose unless you plan to write a new policy that plainly forbids COI editing. A policy that merely discourages is pointless. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose because, as long as Misplaced Pages places priority on allowing anonymous editing, there is just no way to enforce COI regulations. Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
5. Penalizes the honest, rewards the duplicitous. Jclemens (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
6. BLP policy and other help and guidance pages specifically allow subjects to remove BLP violations, for example, and on balance that seems sensible. --JN466 04:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
7. Collect (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
8. Oppose. This strikes me as overreaching. Editors need to be aware that COI is a potential problem and that the community takes it very seriously, but inasmuch as neutral editing by editors with COI issues is possible, requiring disclosure would be unnecessary and run counter to our standards of assuming good faith and focusing on content not contributor. I'm also fairly confident it would be unenforceable. Rivertorch (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
9. Oppose as unenforceable because it is fundamentally incompatible with a venue where registration and identification are optional. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
10. Oppose per JClemens. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment

1. @ASCIIn2Bme: I am proposing that COI editing in article mainspace is prohibited, but that conflicted editors must confine themselves to talk pages only within the scope of their conflict. Fladrif (talk) 03:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

   @King4057 and Beetstra - Giving COIN administrators the power to require that an editor confine his or herself to talkpages only and not edit in mainspace would be a good first step. I'm suggesting that if the editor does not comply with that requirement, uninvolved admins, including the COIN closing admins, would then have the right to issue blocks. Fladrif (talk) 15:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

   @Jayen - I thought about whether the article mainspace editing prohibition should exempt those things currently covered as permissible under Misplaced Pages:COI#Non-controversial_edits, but didn't propose that exception because I have seen so many intractible disputes on various fora as to whether one edit or another was a BLP violation, for example (Seems to come up all the time on the 3RR noticeboard, for example). Better, it thought, to simply confine folks to talk pages and avoid all that. But, if there was an exception from the "Thou shalt not edit in mainspace" rule to cover non-controversial edits, would you then be able to support something along these lines?Fladrif (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

   @ various other "Oppose" comments. What if there was no initial prohibition against mainspace editing by editors with COI, but if the matter went to COIN, the tools in the closing admins' bag of tricks would include to require an editor confine him or herself to the talk pages, enforceable by blocks if ignored? Fladrif (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

   I think that's a very good tool to have, but it still leaves the problem that almost no one *apparently* has a COI to begin with, at least de facto, around here. -- Maelefique 22:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

2. I think we have to start with thinking about what is the purpose of a paid editor? To spin things in the direction of the employer? And right there, isn't that COI? Further, you can twist an article in many directions (as we all know), simply by opposing some material and enhancing others. You never have to make a "bad contribution" if you are smart about it, but you are definitely not working towards the goal of this project. To completely ignore or disregard the real world fact that someone is getting paid to write things here is a little too utopian for me. -- Maelefique 04:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
3. @Sandstein, @First Light: WP:COI focuses on the edits: Do not edit Misplaced Pages to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers. Agree that not all who have a COI make bad contributions - but if it is a neutral contribution it does not break WP:COI. Babakathy (talk) 16:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
4. @ Jclemens. How are the duplicitous rewarded? Or the honest penalized?```Buster Seven Talk 08:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

   Is it really not sufficiently obvious that people who are required to disclose a COI don't have to work very hard to not disclose such a COI? Or that by doing so they dodge cumbersome requirements that apply to those who have honestly declared a COI? Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

   Obvious? This is Misplaced Pages. Nothing is obvious. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternative Proposal 1 by Fladrif per Comments

WP:COI upgraded to a policy from a guideline. Editors with a conflict of interest, especially those with a financial COI, are strongly encouraged to (i) declare on their user page that they have a COI and the scope of the COI, (ii) not edit in article mainspace other than non-controversial edits as defined at WP:COI but only on talk pages within the scope of the COI. Editors are not required to state their real world identity nor to discuss what real-world circumstance creates the conflict of interest. WP:COIN continues its current function, but the closing admininstrators are specifically empowered after a finding that an editor has a COI and is not editing neutrally, to (i) require that the user declare on their user page that they have a conflict of interest and the scope of that conflict; (ii) require that an editor with a COI not edit article mainspace, but only on talkpages; and (iii) to enforce the same, if not followed, with blocks. Any uninvolved admin would also have the right to impose blocks for violation of such COIN remedies. Fladrif (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. As alternative per comments of various editors above. Second choice, but could support this. Doesn't really change current policy, but gives COIN enforcement tools. Doesn't solve everything, just one step in the right direction. Fladrif (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Support. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Still penalizes the honest and rewards dishonesty. I appreciate that you're trying to incorporate feedback, but I think is the fatal flaw in every "declaration" proposal: the path of least resistance is to not declare it, and it's nearly impossible to catch unless the editor in question is sufficiently ham-fisted that the declaration wouldn't have been necessary in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

   Now I am stumped. How is someone found to have a COI at COIN being forced to carry that label on their user page and confined to talk pages within the scope of the COI penalizing the honest and rewarding the dishonest?Fladrif (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

   "... are strongly encouraged to (i) declare on their user page that they have a COI and the scope of the COI" Jclemens (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

   Still perplexed. Editors are not "penalized" if they voluntarily do that which they are strongly encouraged, but not affirmatively required, to do. Editors are not "rewarded" if they choose not to do that which they are strongly encouraged, but not affirmatively required to do. Penalties and rewards are things imposed by third parties, not things one chooses to do oneself. Or, do you simply think that editors with a COI should not be encouraged to disclose it or to stick to the talk pages? Is that bad advice? Fladrif (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

   If you don't understand how adding extra work to editors who take a recommended action--one that is not enforceable in the first place--disincentivizes that action, I'm really afraid I can't help you. I strongly recommend studying up on game theory if you're having trouble understanding my point. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

   That doesn't make the consequences of the choice one makes either a punishment or a reward. Failing to make the choice to follow the recommended course of action does, under both alternatives I've proposed, lead to mandated compliance if the failure to make that choice leads to problems that make it to COIN.Fladrif (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

   If you don't see a fatal flaw in encouraging ("reward" is just fine terminology, but I'll switch if you really have a problem with it...) non-compliance through reduced scrutiny and lower administrative overhead, then there's really nothing else to say here. I maintain my position that increasing burdens on editors taking an optional action disincentivizes that action. Jclemens (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose giving blocking authority to admins based on such a poorly and vaguely written guideline. For example, WP:COI says, "There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists...." Admins should be focusing on editing behavior, which means "focus on the edits, not the editor", or as current policy puts it "Comment on content, not on the contributor." (from WP:NPA). First Light (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Cla68 (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I agree with most of what you wrote, but the prohibition on any direct editing of articles, even after declaring ones COI is too broad. For one, the COI guideline already permits non-controversial changes such as spelling, grammar, and simple facts. Two, COI is too broadly defined in the policy and preventing all COI editors from editing directly--without tightening up the definition of what a COI editor is--would mean that many, many individuals would not be able to work on articles where they had previously contributed productively and in good faith. People with COI get involved in a way that completely neutral editors do not; yes, sometimes to excess, but often COI editors are the only ones who care enough about an article to actually work on it. I don't think we should make the bar so high that they can't contribute. Ocaasi 12:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

View by PleaseStand

Leaving COI in place as a guideline draws significant attention away from the main NPOV policy and reinforces the Misplaced Pages bureaucracy. We should instead demote COI to essay status and drastically rewrite it in a more concise, example-focused manner. The new version would ideally fit on a single, easy-to-read page similar to WP:42 or even some other essays such as WP:MILL. We could continue to show the resulting page to new editors, who could use some guidance on writing neutral articles and acting in their and Misplaced Pages's best interests. Only the most damaging POV issues would warrant blocking, banning, page protection, and other preventive measures. Editors should discuss less damaging issues on article talk pages, as with content disputes in general. PleaseStand (talk) 01:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. There are already short-version COI essays, such as those listed here. Disclosure: I am myself (often) a paid COI. King4057 (talk) 07:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
2. This line of thinking is true for any guideline - they are all based on policies, which are all based on the 5P. Following the reasoning that a guideline is drawing significant attention away from the policies is then true for all guidelines, and all should become essays. Which defies the purpose of essays ... --Dirk Beetstra 07:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose. This is a move in the opposite direction of what should be considered. Fladrif (talk) 16:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
4. Sends wrong message. Babakathy (talk) 16:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
5. Oppose; sends wrong message, implies that this is less important than it is. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
6. Oppose. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Essays are great, but they're only essays. New editors have no easy way to determine whether a given essay enjoys broad support, so they may feel free to ignore it. Rivertorch (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
8. Oppose per all of the above. Bearian (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Gives the impression we don't take COI editing seriously when instead we should be doing more to educate and instruct COI editors in best practices. Ocaasi 13:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

View by Jayen466

There are many aspects of Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines – the COI guideline among them – that favour Misplaced Pages's anonymous editors over biography subjects and their representatives. This is not entirely surprising: Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines are written by its anonymous editors, who take good care to ensure that their own interests are served – the top priorities being that it should be as difficult as possible to hold them personally accountable for what they write, and that they should be able to write what they like, without interference from those they write about.

The Wikimedia Foundation itself does not want to be accountable either, for obvious reasons.

Thus it is not surprising that Misplaced Pages has had and no doubt continues to have many articles on individuals and corporations that were or are unfair to their subjects, to the point of being attack pages.

• Misplaced Pages's anonymous editing concept makes it an ideal venue for defamation, encouraging stalkers, professional rivals and competitors to edit the articles of people they don't like.
• While there is every arrangement and policy investment designed to protect anonymous editors, there is no comparable policy investment to protect biography or corporate subjects – for example:
  • Someone complaining at a Misplaced Pages noticeboard about another editor's "conflict-of-interest" edits or "legal threat" usually obtains a response within 5 minutes, while a subject writing to OTRS sometimes has to wait weeks for a reply.
  • While a biography subject who threatens to sue an editor for libel is blocked from Misplaced Pages, someone who is already in a real-life legal dispute with them can edit their biography, the top Google link for their name, with impunity.
• Biography subjects or corporate officers who come to Misplaced Pages, alarmed that the no. 1 Google link for them shows them in a worse light than they deserve, find themselves in a disorienting environment where the rules are stacked against them, and frequently end up hazed, mocked, and blocked from editing.
• It is not uncommon for biography subjects to ask for deletion of their biographies here. This is sometimes granted, if the person's notability is marginal, and sometimes it isn't.
• While Misplaced Pages has much the same reach as a top newspaper, it is not accountable to the public in any significant way – it is not subject to the Press Complaints Commission, for example. People victimised by it have no voice.

A paid Misplaced Pages advocate with a good knowledge of Misplaced Pages policy and dispute resolution processes might actually make sense in such circumstances. But the matter is fraught with difficulties:

• If paid advocates do not disclose their status, they are open to being discovered, and the community feels betrayed.
• If paid advocates do disclose their status, Misplaced Pages will be criticised for allowing such advocacy.
• If paid advocates disclose their status, they may be ganged up on and thwarted by anonymous contributors hostile to the business world.
• If paid advocates support each other, to counteract this effect, community relations will suffer from the formation of two hostile factions.
• If paid advocates are too successful, articles may end up too positive, causing an additional credibility problem – for it has to be admitted that where subjects have been able to edit little-watched articles in a solitary manner, the results have tended to be problematic as well, by being overly favourable.

Remainder moved to discussion, below, per Jclemens. Perhaps one solution would be to have an internal review board in Misplaced Pages, similar to Misplaced Pages's arbitration committee, that biography subjects, companies and their paid representatives as well as other concerned editors can appeal to when they are unable to establish a neutral wording in an article on them. This board should not be composed of Wikipedians alone, but should also include representatives of the general public.

As unfair information on an individual or a company under their no. 1 Google link can have a very damaging effect indeed, this board should respond much more quickly than the arbitration committee, which is generally the last port of call once all other avenues have been exhausted.

Support

1. Support further discussion in this direction. --JN466 12:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
2. These reasons are why Misplaced Pages articles on "living" subjects (including companies/religions) are usually slanted much more negatively than equivalent articles written by the experts who write and edit professional encyclopedias. An editor with an obvious vendetta against a company/person/religion is rarely called out for their Conflict of Interest, while someone who demonstrates real knowledge of the subject is often called out for having a "conflict". That is quite opposite to how professional works are written. First Light (talk) 15:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Good idea. Cla68 (talk) 23:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
4. This should really be broken into two statements, because I support the summary of the problem. I've seen this happen on OTRS time and time again: real tickets about unbalanced articles do go unanswered for weeks. At the same time, I'm not sure the solution proposed is the most optimum response to this problem. Jclemens (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

   You're right. I've struck the material at the end and put it below instead. (If you think I should strike and move more, please let me know.) --JN466 03:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

5. I'm going to "cross the aisle" here to give partial support, where respect and some lenient consideration for disclosed COI editors, especially named editors, is concerned. I've seen cases with people like User:James dalton bell, User:VictimsWife, User:Brews ohare, and some minor actor whose page I think has been deleted (I remember toward the end saying in frustration that his argument with some COI critics was like a "fistfight with a whore" that ends up as a reputational loss no matter what the merits, but the search terms yield nothing). There is a toxic combination here that the person involved with a case starts out being treated with rudeness and suspicion, while he himself is unfamiliar with the rules, and things quickly degenerate to all out war. I am very much against BLP censorship, but for just such reason I am very much for figuring out ways for BLP principals to get their side of the story in when they want to. I think that one method could be to expand the OTRS system to arrange what I would dub "Verified Interviews with Biographic Subjects" (VIBS) for publication in Wikinews and referencing in Misplaced Pages. The subject of a BLP should be a reliable source even if he has not rented his own website. Wnt (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Arbitration committee doesn't decide on the article content, but on the user conduct issues. Creation of the "internal review board in Misplaced Pages that biography subjects, companies and their paid representatives....can appeal to when they are unable to establish a neutral wording in an article" goes against everything what Misplaced Pages is. There are article talk pages and appropriate noticeboards for discussion about article content, and for user conduct issues we have arbitration committee. It is unacceptable that some committee or board has the power to make decisions on the content, bypassing established procedures and ignoring the consensus of editors who edit those articles.--В и к и T 12:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Oppose, per Wikiwind. And by the way, part of this is already covered by WP:OTRS. --Dirk Beetstra 13:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Adding a layer of bureaucracy for the purpose of creating an editorial board making decisions about content questions behind closed doors strikes me as fundamentally changing the core idea of Misplaced Pages. I'm not saying that having an editorial board to make decisions about content questions in an Encyclopedia is a bad thing - Britannica has been doing it for over 250 years, and it's worked out pretty well for them. It just isn't the way Misplaced Pages works. Fladrif (talk) 16:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Content can never be turned over to a committee, which here is likely to be a very small, interested committee. We have an editing and discussion process which while it is imperfect will be short-circuited by creation of an option which permits dictation of content. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
5. Oppose. The best committee is the whole body of editors. This is the basic concept of Crowd Sourcing at the heart of Misplaced Pages ; though a group like ours cannot be reliable in an academic sense, we can at least give a fair summary if enough people participate. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
6. Oppose per all of the above opposes. Undermines the concept of a community of editors regulating content through consensus. Rivertorch (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Kilopi (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Goes against the basis of Misplaced Pages, as per above comments. It is not part of our purpose to ensure that the subjects of our articles are happy with the coverage they receive, and there are already processes which they can use to highlight issues with their articles, which have been known to work. --FormerIP (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Perhaps one solution would be to have an internal review board in Misplaced Pages, similar to Misplaced Pages's arbitration committee, that biography subjects, companies and their paid representatives as well as other concerned editors can appeal to when they are unable to establish a neutral wording in an article on them. This board should not be composed of Wikipedians alone, but should also include representatives of the general public.

As unfair information on an individual or a company under their no. 1 Google link can have a very damaging effect indeed, this board should respond much more quickly than the arbitration committee, which is generally the last port of call once all other avenues have been exhausted. --JN466 03:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Other possible solutions would be –

1. A policy similar to BLP, but for corporate subjects. In writing this, we should involve outside stakeholders: the people and companies we write about.
2. A corresponding noticeboard, modelled on the BLP noticeboard.
3. Particularly problematic articles and minor (little-watched) biographies could be moved to a separate project where editing is registered, rather than anonymous. --JN466 03:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I would very strongly oppose extending BLP beyond living natural people. The reputation of a living individual, and the risk of doing harm to one by undue emphasis is a much more serious ethical question than doing harm to an impersonal entity. For one thing, a corporation is usually in a very much better position to defend itself. In fact, a corporation is in a position to defend itself very effectively against even the most valid of criticism, and is very apt to claim unfairness as a way of discouraging critics. We cannot engage in clear libel, or compiling articles out of consumer complaints that belong on Yelp!, but that's a long way form the special consideration we owe our fellow human beings. You cannot hurt the feelings of a corporation, only its economic interests. That's not a trivial matter, but its a very different thing from unfairly shaming a real living person. To a company we owe fairness, to a person we owe humane consideration. I would give no special opening to the apologists for corporate behavior--that's encouraging their COI. We do better to judge abstractly, by published sources. the appropriate role of a corporate entity is calling our attention to those we may have overlooked, and that can be done on the talk page or OTRS. the only real need of OTRS is when we must consider private data, and this is much more likely for an individual. DGG ( talk ) 07:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

DGG, your point about the difference between natural persons and other legal persons is well taken, and I would not (and did not) propose extending BLP to other types of legal person. At the same time, though, unless I am missing something, we seem to offer remarkably little guidance on how to write encyclopedic articles on companies (beyond the very obscure Misplaced Pages:Companies, corporations and economic information page, which does not even claim to be an essay). Putting some thought into what a Misplaced Pages article on a company should look like, and writing a corresponding guideline, would be a worthwhile undertaking. Any such guideline should naturally reflect the differences between natural persons and companies. JN466 03:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• The discussion options above all move in the wrong direction. The problem is not that we are too lenient toward editors, but that we are too hostile toward subjects. The subjects of biographical articles, and yes, even corporations, should have a right to reply in some way that is referenced from and even summarized in the article. But they should not have the right to strip out sourced information from the article because it looks bad. We achieve NPOV by including all points of view, not by trying to work out an average. Wnt (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

View by Anbu121

Proposal: Make two separate guidelines, one for paid COI/direct COI and one for unpaid COI/indirect COI

Paid COI/direct COI will include cases like

• A company paying its marketing personnel or an external agency for writing about it
• A user editing his own BLP (Autobiography)
• The owner/copyright holder of the subject of the article

Unpaid COI/indirect COI will include cases like

• A student editing the article of the school/college in which he/she studies
• Fans editing article of a celebrity

These are only examples. We need to frame some guidelines on how to determine whether the COI is direct or indirect.

The current guideline does not explicitly differentiate these two types. Hence, in many cases, an indirect COI is handled in a manner that a direct COI ought to be handled, leading to disputes. --Anbu121 (talk me) 22:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Paid editors should be split into categories. Promoting a new line of Jeans or being overly protective of your favorite bands article are not as consequential in the real world as influencing the political voting public. Hundreds of thousands of voters come to WP for info. COI, or some new principle, should protect them from chicanery. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Again, with someone assuming that cash trading hands is somehow more corrupting than personal ideology. I don't believe that it is, having seen all sorts of other -isms. The nice thing about paid editors is that, unlike nationalistic (or whatever) ones, they rarely seem to take things personally. Jclemens (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

   I did not meant that they are more corrupt. I am just saying that the suggestions given in the guideline to handle COI can be separate for direct COI and indirect COI. There are other policies (NPOV, verifiability) to handle the personal ideologies.--Anbu121 (talk me) 06:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

2. I think is would be an unneeded complication.Babakathy (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose, and where is the line between those two types, and it would be overly bureaucratic. --Dirk Beetstra 19:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

1. I agree those are qualitatively different cases, best dealt with in different ways. WP:COI is useful for editors with commercial bias; I can't think of what WP:COI (indirect) could say that isn't already in WP:NPOV. Kilopi (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Maybe COI (strong) and COI (weak) rather than paid or unpaid. Paid falling under a strong COI. King4057 (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
3. I agree with this particular division as there is a difference between a band member editing the article on his band and a fan editing the same article. However, I'm not sure it's a good idea to view the "fan" as having a COI, strong, weak, or otherwise. What's the difference between having a "weak COI" and being "neutral"? If you like the band's music just a "little bit" do you have a COI?. I would hate to see an environment where only those who don't give a rat's ass about a topic are viewed as "neutral". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
4. I wouldn't support two separate guidelines, but I would support a separate section within WP:COI which specifically addresses paid editors. Ocaasi 13:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

View by Eclipsed

Professionals who responsibly engage with the Misplaced Pages Community should be encouraged to devote a portion of their work time to Pro bono assistance within Misplaced Pages, in areas outside of their conflict of interest.

Support

1. as proposer.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)     12:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
2. I think the sentiment behind this is a good one. I wouldn't call it 'pro bono' work, since that implies something compensatory about their COI editing; I would just make it a positive suggestion: "COI editors are encouraged to edit outside their area of conflict, to gain experience editing neutrally, and to help develop the encyclopedia."

Oppose

1. Thing is, this applies to everyone who edits - anyone can edit, everyone is encouraged to edit.Babakathy (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
2. No, oppose. What you are actually enabling, is that an editor can blatantly promote his own business on Wiki, as long as he 'pays' with his knowledge to Misplaced Pages. And how are we going to measure whether how much Jimbo is earning by turning Misplaced Pages into a massive promotional page, and how many other pages does Jimbo have to edit to counter that? And how will that compare to a small local company from some little village somewhere in some country? --Dirk Beetstra 19:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Unworkable. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
4. All professionals should be encourages to do pro bono work for WP, surely! And those who deal responsibly with a COI have already done everything we can reasonably ask of them. --FormerIP (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment

• Interesting idea, but unenforceable and it would amount to a tax (in time, not dollars) on editors who declared a professional interest, but provided no penalty whatsoever to an editor who failed to declare one. Jclemens (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with Jclemens. I would have to disclose on 200 articles' talk pages that I'm an attorney. Bearian (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

  Only if you have a conflict of interest on those 200 articles. Simply having knowledge of a particular subject area doesn't count. But, being a lawyer, I expect you know that. --FormerIP (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

View by Hipocrite

Misplaced Pages is an attractive target for anyone who wants the TRUTH to be different than the truth. By manipulating the most well-known and visible source of content on the internet, any PR agent, true-believer, or paid disinformation agent can complete their mission of changing the public perception of something. Misplaced Pages, the community, does an incredibly poor job of protecting its editors who attempt to stem the tide of this torrent of disinformation, giving rise to an atmosphere where conduct matters far, far more than content ever does.

Administrators, and more importantly, arbiters, need to be informed that NPOV is a pillar of the encyclopedia, and that editors, regardless of how civil they are, how much they fail to obviously edit war, and how well sourced their contributions might seem to be, remain blockable and bannable if they fail to follow our basic compact with the reader - that we will provide information that reflects the weight that information is provided in the informed world at large.

Support

1. Hipocrite (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Yes. MastCell  19:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Strongly support. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
4. Strong support. --Dirk Beetstra 19:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
5. I'm on board with this, though I'd tweak the wording a bit. Maybe "reminded" instead of "informed", but the jist of it is on the mark. Fladrif (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
6. Support.--В и к и T 20:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
7. Strong support. Editing for the good of the reader instead of editing for the good of the candidate. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
8. Strong support as both the current consensus, and as what in my opinion ought to be the consensus. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
9. Support. Though I fear the tide is turning. The paid-editors/COI crowd grows increasingly strong and brash, attacking those who speak out for a volunteer-based, NPOV encyclopedia. I don't know if they can be stymied, but we need to keep trying. Ebikeguy (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
10. Support. If our readers get the impression that paid editing has taken root on Misplaced Pages, they'll lose whatever confidence they had in the project. It has taken years to build up that confidence, and it's still precarious. It makes no sense to weaken it deliberately. SlimVirgin 05:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

    I think the single most important thing we can do to protect Misplaced Pages's credibility in the eyes of the public is to insist paid editors disclose their COI and stay on Talk pages, AfC, noticeboards, sandboxes, etc. I want to continue to make contributions as a paid editor, but I also want to see Misplaced Pages flourish, grow and become more reliable as a result. King4057 (talk) 08:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

11. If by "the informed world at large" you mean reliable sources, then certainly. Jclemens (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
12. Seems sensible. Mathsci (talk) 07:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
13. Support. Policing articles for subtle POV-pushing is a thankless task but a necessary one if Misplaced Pages is to attain and maintain credibility as a repository of neutral information. Rivertorch (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
14. Support, subject to observation below. Tom Harrison 15:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
15. Support strongly. Writegeist (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
16. Support, though I feel the first (and currently only) two observations below are true. --Elvey (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
17. Support--Cailil 00:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
18. Support. Kilopi (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
19. Mixed I support that it should be considered an NPOV violation if a single purpose account appears to systematically and intentionally be corrupting the neutrality of Misplaced Pages. In other words, verification + civility does not necessarily = NPOV. But I also agree that such a rule would be prone to abuse. King4057 (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
20. Support Gandydancer (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
21. NW (Talk) 00:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
22. Support as a statement of principle. Misplaced Pages falls short of this mark at present, but we should craft policy to move us in this direction. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
23. In-theory-only support. In abstract principle, yes it would be great to simply vaporise all the editors who fail to follow WP:NPOV. That's on the assumption that, naturally, it will be me who gets to be the judge. I might give firmer support to a fuller, workable proposal. FormerIP (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sorry, but this is a battleground attitude. It's way easy for editors who psych themselves up along the lines of the battle cry above ("torrent of disinformation" etc.) to bite well-meaning but less wiki-experienced contributors or to massively and successfully push their own POV by skillful wikilawyering. See the Messer-Kruse affair. (And you probably mean "contract with the reader" not "compact with the reader".) The idea that editors who persistently edit against NPOV should be sanctioned has been better phrased by Sandstein above. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

   I'm not an authority on English usage, but in my mind "compact" and "contract" are synonymous. Wiktionary agrees with me... which probably means I'm wrong. :P MastCell  19:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

2. Agree with ASCIIn2Bme. This sets up a theoretical dichotomy that does not really exist, for our community contains many who, to use Hipocrite's apt words, "want the TRUTH to be different than the truth" and who "by manipulating the most well-known and visible source of content on the internet" would like to "complete their mission of changing the public perception of something". This latter ability is – and always has been – a major recruiting tool for Wikimedia. It is reflected in battleground areas and arbitration cases where the entire active editorship consists only of extremists with diametrically opposed viewpoints, and no middle-of-the-road editors are in evidence. So, while I agree that Wikimedia holds out, to all comers, an opportunity to edit the no. 1 Google link for any topic under the sun, the way this is phrased is an example of psychological splitting. The enemy is within, not without. As I have said above, I have seen too many cases where the "COI editor" was in the right, and given a very, very rough deal here. Sandstein did indeed offer a better, fairer and less obviously self-congratulatory version of this above. JN466 03:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Close, but depends too much on weight; which in practice means that successful prior PR or disinformation efforts must be uncritically ratified. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Vigorously says nothing with great emphasis and an aggressive flourish. Let's save some words and reduce it to something we can all agree upon: "NPOV is good." Carrite (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
5. I'd be concerned if this had a chance in hell. All this says is that we should allow administrators and Arbitrators to make content decisions and enforce them by block. This proposal has nothing positive to offer in terms of how such a thing could be implemented without destroying the consensus process. It is a nullification of the crowdsourcing model on which Misplaced Pages is based. B——C_ritical 20:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

   Let me play devil's advocate. Admins already make conduct decisions and enforce them by block, and these conduct issues are often far less clear-cut than content disputes. Your arguments are general enough that they could equally well be applied to prohibit admins from making conduct-based blocks, as best I can tell. MastCell  20:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

   Conduct has little to do with content. I really don't have to argue this: if anyone wants this to actually be the way WP works, let's just make a community RfC over whether we should change policy to let ArbCom make conduct content decisions. Then do the same for regular administrators. Till then, let's keep using the admin tools to enforce content something that can get you desysopped. B——C_ritical 20:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

   "let's just make a community RfC over whether we should change policy to let ArbCom make conduct decisions." Did you mean to write "content decisions"? Certainly arbcom and admins already make content decisions in areas that, as a result of arbitration, are subject to discretionary sanctions. This effects a significant and increasing number of articles. Tom Harrison 21:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

   Corrected, thanks. B——C_ritical 21:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

6. This sounds as if it is making excuses for editors who violate WP's policies in certain topic areas, but justify their actions based on the fact that we know what the TRUTH is and are just trying to make sure that only the TRUTH as we know it is represented in Misplaced Pages. This attitude has caused immense problems in certain topic areas in Misplaced Pages, especially in science and pseudoscience, some of which have yet to be resolved. Cla68 (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

   I don't see that anywhere in Hipocrite's statement. He's advocating that people who egregiously violate Misplaced Pages's policies (in this case, WP:NPOV) should be blocked. His view is informed by the fact that a committed advocate can push any form of nonsense, no matter how unencyclopedic or pernicious, nearly indefinitely so long as s/he remains superficially civil. That's a reality that I think a lot of editors have experienced, and I think it's a substantial contributor to the problem of editor retention. MastCell  01:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

   I would have to have examples of that. I haven't seen it happen, and I think it would be difficult to push nonsense without proper sourcing and without a large team of similarly minded editors. But I do see where Cla68 gets that, because admins pushing their individual or collective POV is even worse than general editors doing so. And admins deciding what is their idea of NPOV and then pushing it is what's being recommended here. B——C_ritical 02:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

7. Oppose concept we will provide information that reflects the weight that information is provided in the informed world at large. The mass media makes money off hyping war, terrorism, violence, etc., so there is a bias in much news reporting. It may take years before books and scholarly works give a more balanced view of reality on these and similar hot button topics. Therefore this sentence seems to say that it's OK to focus only on what the mainstream media "informed world" thinks and defacto calls POV those WP:RS that aren't part of the mainstream media. CarolMooreDC 05:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
8. Try as I might, I fear the tenor of the comments is one which I can not support. POV-warriors ahave not been shown in the past to be predominantly "paid" at all. I suggest it is better to ensure NPOV than it is to go witch0-hunting and outing editors. The actual compact for Misplaced Pages is only to present reliably sourced information to readers, and to present the sources so that the readers can see precisely what they say. Collect (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Observations

1. The statement "editors, regardless of how civil they are, how much they fail to obviously edit war, and how well sourced their contributions might seem to be, remain blockable and bannable if they fail to follow our basic compact with the reader" is factually incorrect. Any admin who blocked or banned a civil, non-edit warring user employing at least remotely credible sources would be gleefully and energetically made an ex-admin by the Arbitration Committee. Admins are expressly forbidden from intervening in content (aside from BLP). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Support the basic point, but admins (and editors) usually don't know what's NPOV because they aren't familiar with the sources. They define neutral based on what the talk page says, what they saw on the news last Tuesday, or just on their own superficial knowledge of the subject. It's as if Johnny takes a pie to school, and Billy snatches it away. They fight. Teacher breaks it up and decrees a fair compromise - each gets half the pie and must stay in at recess. That's how it works in practice when Misplaced Pages administrators rule on content. Tom Harrison 15:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

   I really like your schoolteacher–pie simile here. :) JN466 06:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

   I concur with Tom Harrison that you need to read the sources to assess whether a set of edits are NPOV, removing existing POV bias or introducing POV bias. Babakathy (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

3. Not sure what the actual change advocated by this view is - are we talking of increasing/changing powers of admins, and are we talking of NPOV policy or COI guideline? Babakathy (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

   I think it's pretty clear "Start blocking people for being non-neutral advocates for minority positions beyond their prevalence in reliable sources, already." Hipocrite (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

   Thanks, but as an amendment to WP:COI (and upgrade to policy??) or an amendment to WP:NPOV? Babakathy (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

   I don't believe in reductionism. The solution to the problem is to start actually blocking advocates, as opposed to the current practice of blocking people who say a bad word. Arguing about what verbiage some policy no one reads or follows says is irrelevant. Hipocrite (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

   NPOV violations swing both ways, so this would necessarily apply to NPOV-violating advocates as well as NPOV-violating opposers. And I'm assuming individual admins will start making the judgments as to who is violating NPOV? If not, then the evaluation and blocking/banning process needs to be made clear. Dreadstar ☥ 18:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

   Good point. Hipocrite, do you mean for your proposal to also include non-neutral advocates of the purported majority position? Cla68 (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

   I don't know why you can't read what I wrote. It says quite clearly "we will provide information that reflects the weight that information is provided in the informed world at large." How hard is this to understand? Hipocrite (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

   Sorry, I should have phrased my question differently because I didn't intend to provoke such a defensive response. The problem I have seen in some science and pseudoscience articles is that some editors interpret the "weight" issue in a POV manner and refuse to acknowledge that a notable minority opinion even exists. In that case, those editors are pushing POV editing in support of a claimed majority opinion. They may have a COI to do so, for example if they are a member of a profession or activist group which has a stake in the issue, but their COI isn't as important as how they act on it, i.e. if they engage in POV editing. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

   If editors are failing to follow our basic compact with readers that "we will provide information that reflects the weight that information is provided in the informed world at large," they should be blocked until they do so. You clearly believe that this is false - that readers who bias our coverage away from the weight information is provided in the world at large (by over weighting either the majority or minority views outside of their proportion in reliable sources) should not be blocked, because admins are not permitted to judge NPOV, despite the fact that it is one of the five pillars. That's fine, but I don't know why you want to have some threaded discussion about why you don't think NPOV is blockable because some editors push science/psuedoscience. Hipocrite (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

   Hipocrite, however much fun it would be to see admins with differing takes on NPOV blocking non-admin editors and each other, I don't think it would be very good for business. B——C_ritical 23:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

   I think the reason NPOV isn't enforced better, as in blocking POV-pushing editors, is mainly a question of simple manpower. To take care of POV-pushing editors, an admin would need to study all the sources, peruse the topic's talk page discussions, including all the archives, ask all the parties some questions, then some follow-up questions, hand out the blocks, then deal with the resulting fallout and recriminations at ANI/AN. This process would be extremely time-consuming. If WP had more active admins, they could share this task among themselves, along with all the janitorial work that needs to be done. Since they don't have enough people, the admins choose not to get involved in such time-intensive activities. Cla68 (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

   Doesn't work, any such determination of NPOV is automatically enforcement by the admin/s of their own POV. It's just allowing admins to have a POV which is more important than that of other editors, and enforce it. B——C_ritical 00:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

   Presumably, if there is POV-pushing happening on both sides of the issue, then editors on both sides would be blocked. You're right, but there are ways to mitigate it, such as by having at least three admins, preferably chosen at random, involved in the decision or review process. Or, perhaps the admin could take his/her evidence then present it as a public RfC before making a decision on who gets blocked. Of course, that would make it even more time consuming. Cla68 (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

   If you want me to write a 2,500 word explanation every time I want to block a civil AIDS denialist, then forget it. I don't get paid for my time here, but volunteering doesn't equate to my time having an opportunity cost of zero. NW (Talk) 00:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

   NW, that's a straw man. That's not what I'm saying. Cla68 (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

   So what are you saying? A public RFC (necessitating the comment of two previously involved editors) suggests something of that length to me. NW (Talk) 14:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

4. In principle, I'd be happy to support this but Cla68 and NW are right about the time it would take. And it would need to take the time for it to be done properly. Often arguments on this sort of thing degenerate into why won't you let me include this info, you are censoring vs. because it is psudeoscience/not widely accepted/small minority. Sometimes in such debates you run into genuine, civil editors who listen to policy and you can work together to improve the article in NPOV manner, but such cases are rare. But more often when you are trying to avoid WP:UNDUE the editor pushing the POV will respond with you are stopping me becase you are a fascits/communist/Christian/Muslim/Jew/partyX/partyY. For an uninvolved admin to sort it out and ultimately block someone they would need to review the edits and read many of the sources (or have some expert knowledge). Lot of work but it would be needed if an editor ends up being punished. My ambivalence to this proposal is I would hate to see a situation where a case is reviewed and an editor blocked after 30 minutes review or less. It just would not do justie to the complexity of the situation. I'd be happy to support this proposal, provided there were clear guidelines included as to what findings of fact where necessary (on weighting of content for example). If there's not enough time to do that, then don't block. Babakathy (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

   The process on balance works pretty well in areas subject to discretionary sanctions. It doesn't seem to take more time on average than a 3rr investigation. It isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing,and it's made contentious articles managable - no small accomplishemnt. It should be possible to extend it to other contentious areas. That may gradually be happening, one arb case at a time. Tom Harrison 13:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

View by Cailil

As well as the points about paid editing one of the primary issues of this RFC is about "outing" and where and when exposing what an editor does in real life/elsewhere on the web can be of net benefit to a COI case and when it is plain harrassment. In my time here (as an editor and sysop) I've encountered anonymous (IP) troll accounts on articles not widely watched (comic books, games, tv shows etc) but with a significant or vocal blogosphere or internet community. These anonymous editors making edits that include unsourced negative information are just as bad as the PR companies being paid to censor wikipedia articles or use them for marketing purposes.

Liking Superman comics is not a prima facie conflict of interest (just like being a Buddhist or using a Linux operating system are not prima facie COI positions) on its own – editing (paid or not) to use wikipedia to espouse anything other than a, well sourced and neutrally worded record of the existing research on a topic is where COI problems occur with personal allegiance or ideology in annymous and/or unpaid editors. Being paid to edit (ie being employed to use wikipedia in order to promote anything), or being encouraged by non-monetary pressures, to alter articles for the benefit of anything other than wikipedia's aims is a conflict of interest in dictionary definition of the term. As long as someone has a real life incentive to make an article show something in a particular light (positive or negative) they are not adhering to WP:5 and are breaking this site's 3 core policies.

The next question is not whether we should allow paid editing but rather, how do we deal with exposing COIs. Going back to my Superman comic fan analogy – just the fact that an editor likes something (or has a userbox saying that they do) doesn't mean they have a conflict of interest. Being a member of another internet community/forum (Warcraft for example) does not make an editor an automatic COI problem. It is only when they make edits contrary to core policy in order to advance a POV that they are problematic. In this circumstance when an editor has not just being misbehaving but has demonstrated acts of bad faith (starting a thread on an outside forum calling for meatpuppets for example, or making polemical pronouncments about other editors in other public forums in order to game WP:NPA) then yes I believe we do have a duty to consider off site behaviour.

Currently only ArbCom are invested with the authority to take this information into account. But ArbCom haven't got the time to deal with the problems of COI on WP as a whole – just look at the legitimate threads on WP:COIN, the Arbs' workload precludes them from being able to deal with all of this. Furthermore the malicious use of COI to take another editor “out of the game”, and the issues around harassment of editors by others stalking and hounding them on suspicion of a COI are deeply problematic, and are just as toxic to the community as actual COI edits are.

My solution would be to bring WP:COIN into a format like the Requests for Oversight systems. If we set-up a system wherein Oversighters (or A.N other trusted and accountable group of editors) could investigate claims of COI based on sensitive/private information off-wiki that might reduce the problems of "outing" and hopefully curb harrassment. From a practical standpoint this could be done by asking users with concerns to contact the COI Ovesighters through a form-to-email script that goes directly to a WMF account. If there is a problem this could then be published on-wiki (at WP:COIN) in an abridged form (like we deal with Checkuser requests)--Cailil 15:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. --Cailil 15:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
2. King4057 (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
3. This concept could be worth a good thought and discussion. It is a bit like what WP:OTRS can do, but then maybe more specified for one wiki. I don't think it will solve the problem, it will however give a good handle on a couple of difficult cases and take out at least a part of the problem. --Dirk Beetstra 05:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
4. Could help. Babakathy (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
5. Oversight. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
6. Oversight is a sensible solution: a way to deal with potentially sensitive information and investigation while maintaining the trust of the community, and allowing Misplaced Pages to maintain the trust of our readers. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

1. It is only when they make edits contrary to core policy in order to advance a POV that they are problematic - this is precisely the point often missed in COI discussions. Having an interest in what you edit is not a COI, editting to promote outside interests is - it's the edits. Babakathy (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

   I think an often missed point is, that while problematic COI edits do have a certain point-of-view, it is not always only a violation of WP:NPOV, it may not even be the biggest of the violations.E.g. (true) spammers by definition have a conflict of interest, they try to add their links hoping people will follow them so they make money with it - the addition of that link does not push so much a non-neutral point of view on the page they are adding it to, it is however very often a stronger violation of WP:NOT. --Dirk Beetstra 10:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Call for a general amnesty by Wnt

I believe that people User:Will Beback who have been blocked for zealous anti-COI efforts, as well as people who have been blocked or not unblocked due to a hostile reaction to their COI such as User:Charlie wilkes, should receive a general amnesty from blocks/bans that have been made under our contradictory, confused, unclear, and apparently unpopular policies regarding whether COI should be criticized or protected. I propose that at the close of this RfC these two and any similar cases people can agree on should be unblocked and unbanned - provided no independent compelling reason exists for a block/ban, and in that instance, it should be clearly identified in the log. This would not invalidate other sanctions against them. This is an exercise of the community's power to override ArbCom.

Support

1. Wnt (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I back ArbCom's decision in the TimidGuy case. Carrite (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
2. That decision was based on outing, harassment, battleground conduct, and personal attacks because of other editors' religious views—all violation of WP policies. First Light (talk) 06:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Unblocks are not merited in either of those cases. For other cases that might have more merit, we have process for requesting to be unblocked.--FormerIP (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

1. This RfC is a fully improper place for such Wiki-political concepts. Collect (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Inappropriate place - and I don't think that these editors were blocked on the bases of WP:COI alone. --Dirk Beetstra 05:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
3. If major changes in policy result from this RfC, ArbCom could be asked to review specific decisions, in the light of the findings of the RfC bu there is no way we can in a general RfC give specific suggestions on individual cases. Babakathy (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Call for a narrow policy by Elvey

What's wrong with COI is that its a vague guideline. Typically, the folks that hold back from editing because of it don't need to, and those that don't hold back are the ones that needed to be turned back. We should have a policy that 1)narrowly defines and 2)forbids COI edits. (COI edits would be much more narrowly defined than edits by editors with a COI.) The hassle introduced requiring COI edits to be proposed on the talk page instead of in mainspace is totally worth the reduced hassle of dealing with persistent harmful COI edits. (The current COI should become an essay; so technically, I support the original RfC.)

Support

1. --Elvey (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Yes but see comment. Babakathy (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Yes. Narrow the definition and start to include political operatives in the deliniation. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
4. We have a policy against vandalism because it damages the encyclopedia. Of course, vandalism still happens. The policy is important, however, because it sets out expectations, even if not every editor meets those expectations. It engenders trust among our readers to know that we firmly oppose ethically problematic editing, even if some PR flacks sneak through. It provides a basis for action, when the COI is known. We should not be writing policy or guidelines for people who ignore policy and guidelines, we should unequivocally state best practice. In short, this is a good idea. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Yes, if the definition focuses on actions more than level of involvement. Non-paid supporters of whatever ideological/academic/nationalist/religous/etc. viewpoint will feel free to admit COI/POV if won't be punished for it; then it just becomes a way to judge if their actions are neutral in interests of Misplaced Pages or COI/POV against Misplaced Pages. Or maybe we need to RENAME policy COI/POV and say what is COI and what is POV and how to deal with each. CarolMooreDC 21:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
2. I partly support the premise, but think the focus should remain on the editor rather than the edits. Unproblematic edits can be dealt with by way of exemption (so that, for example, we don't end up ensnaring editors who have only ever fixed typos on the relevant article). If the reverse were the case (ie, it were necessary to show that their edits met a set of criteria), the wikilawyering advantage would be with problematic editors. FormerIP (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

1. I'd like to hear a good proposal about how this is to be enforced. As a riff on your statement, I think the folks that declare a COI aren't always the ones who need to, and the ones who do not declare a COI are often the ones most in need of doing so. I'd love to hear ideas on enforceability, such that honesty is not penalized. Jclemens (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
2. I agree on the premise that ethical companies are the most discouraged to participate, while corrupt or lazy paid editors aren't discouraged enough. I'd be interested in ideas for a better carrot/stick, but I'm not sure it's a problem with definition. King4057 (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
3. I agree with this in general, but it does not take us much further; concur with Jclemens.Babakathy (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
4. I agree with the more narrow definition; but the forbidding of COI edits also should be narrow. Editing out totally erroneous factoids should be OK. As well as massively WP:undue and defamatory info that no one else will edit out for you. CarolMooreDC 05:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
5. I concur with Jclemens, et al. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
6. " Typically, the folks that hold back from editing because of it don't need to, and those that don't hold back are the ones that needed to be turned back" Exactly. And yes, how would this be applied? B——C_ritical 19:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

View by Collect

The basis of Misplaced Pages is to create an encyclopedia written as dispassionately as possible. Edits by any editor which advance that goal are to be commended, and edits which do not advance that goal are to be deplored.

In the past, editors were sometimes "outed" as having a "conflict of interest" - although often this was done by editors with a directly conflicting conflict of interest (or "conflict of POV" if we wish to be less judgemental). Thus the laudable intent of seeking to bar editors with a COI was sometimes subverted in splendid examples of game theory in practice.

Thus we are now faced either with maintaining a fiction that editors with a COI are intrinsically incapable of obeying WP:NPOV or we should face the reality that such editors can certainly advance the goals of Misplaced Pages with a fully WP:NPOV editing ethos.

It is, moreover, antithetical to Misplaced Pages's long-term goals to accuse such editors of being "paid editors" which, more properly, should apply only to editors who create an article with an expectation of financial remuneration for articles which do not actually obey WP:NPOV.

Thus the current WP:COI is more a problem than it is a solution to the actual situation now faced by the project. It leads more to an accusatory environment than is proper per the core values of professional conduct towards other editors. And most certainly no change should be used to reward those who have been found to have improperly used the system to attack other editors as having had a COI in the past. Collect (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Collect (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC) )
2. per Collect. --Kenatipo 22:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
4. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
5. Well put.VolunteerMarek 02:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
6. That's right. First Light (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
7. JN466 03:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
8. B——C_ritical 18:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Very much agree.
9. Cla68 (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
10. The accusatory environment (battleground, harassment, etc.) created by any policy is a major problem. Good job identifying one here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I can't see what part of WP:COI Collect sees as a problem, or antithetical to WP's goals; has he read it? Dicklyon (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

   Yes - and all the associated essays and several of the ArbCom decisions reflecting thereon. Your point is? Collect (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

   My point is that you seem to be blaming WP:COI for some aspect of recent problems; but you didn't say what parts of WP:COI you object to, or cause the problem, or could be improved. When I read it, I don't find anything that looks like what you're complaining about. Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

   I stated that the current "accusatory environment" has been exacerbated by the use of COI in some cases - I take it that you have not noted any such environment, even though such has been noted in ArbCom decisions? Cheers - no need to answer Dick. Collect (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

   You stated that "the current WP:COI is more a problem than it is a solution"; but I can't see what in WP:COI you refer to. Dicklyon (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose. WP:COI isn't the problem. The lack of enforcement tools at COIN that makes COI issues spill over elsewhere instead of being nipped in the bud there is the problem. Fladrif (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I'm sure that - in some cases - volunteer editors abuse COI to implement their own bias against the bias of a paid editor, rather than inviting both forms of bias editors to a civil discussion on the talk page, but I don't agree that such instances means the COI guideline is worthless. I am a often a paid editor. King4057 (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
4. Strong oppose. No, it is not WP:COI that is the problem then, it is WP:NPOV that is the problem. Specifically, the POV of editors who want to support his own POV and suppresses other editors (and if they have a conflict of interest, the easier it is for them to suppress that). --Dirk Beetstra 05:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
5. Oppose--В и к и T 12:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
6. Oppose. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
7. Oppose --WhiteWriter 21:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
8. Oppose: it is the edits that matter. Current guidelines only finds a violation of WP:COI if edits made promote outside interests, not where edits are neutral but in an area where the outside interest exists. Babakathy (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Editing a lot in the Israel-Palestine area I assume that a large number of editors are paid operatives who would lie about it if you ask them - and even if they accidentally provided hard evidence of it! The policy is not for those committed to lying. It's for those who have at least a little bit of conscience and honesty who are trying to do the right thing and respect Misplaced Pages's rules. Even with COI rules, it's easy to forget COI issues in the middle of debate. (Example I give above of my minor party affiliation whose relevance didn't occur to me til someone else's affiliation was pointed out; everyone fessing up just helped clarify the issue on an AfD.) I do think the COI rules have to be a bit narrower and more specific since people are harassed too much for mere POVs. CarolMooreDC 05:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
10. Per incisive and insightful comments by Dicklyon, CarolmooreDC et al. Writegeist (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
11. Although I am generally receptive to the harm reduction strategy of policy, I think the COI heads off a lot of problems. We can't write p&g for people who ignore them entirely; that's never pragmatic. However we can head off a number of problems by clearly stating the problems which arise from editing with a conflict of interest. In medicine, researchers sometimes take industry money to run studies. We teach new grad students that such studies are four times more likely to reach a conclusion favorable to the funding company than independent studies of the same question. That is the best case for a COI: the company has no input or editorial control on the research (no one would knowingly publish a paper where people other than the authors determined the conclusion), and all research is independently reviewed by multiple (unpaid) scientists. And yet this remarkable statistical tendency persists. To ignore that fact is to ignore reality. It is not being pragmatic to ignore the subtle or pernicious effects of conflicts of interest. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
12. Oppose - per Fladrif. Smallbones (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
13. Oppose. The proposition misstates the nature of a conflict of interest. Editors with a COI are not supposed by anyone to be "intrinsically incapable of obeying WP:NPOV". However, they are potentially compromised. If you serve on a company board and you declare a conflict of interest, it is not because you believe yourself to be "intrinsically incapable" of contributing to the relevant discussion, but so that the conflict is out in the open. --FormerIP (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

1. (repost) The guideline on COI here at WP is narrower than in a corporate governance setting, where one is considered to have a COI by being involved in any decision to do with the Interest. Our guideline says Do not edit Misplaced Pages to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers(my emphasis). The guideline does not prevent or even discourage me from editing in an area where I have an interest, but says that you should not write about these things unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits improve Misplaced Pages. We all have a conflict of interest in the general sense somewhere but if one edits with 'Due care', one does not violate WP:COI despite the interest. Babakathy (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
2. not write about these things unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits improve Misplaced Pages is a nice line. And there is no doubt that a person who never went to a meeting of such and such group/movement might be a fanatical supporter using wikipedia to advance a cause, constantly abusing policy; a person who is regularly active attending meetings of this groups/movement, sending out emails, etc., may also be careful not to abuse Misplaced Pages rules and no real behavioral problems can be found. What we need is to get tougher on those who DO abuse wikipedia policies, whatever their motivation is. And that should be especially true for those who have worked their way into admin positions to promote their agenda. CarolMooreDC 21:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg

WP:Reward board and WP:Bounty board are useless, and should be marked as {{historical}}. According to Wikipedia_talk:Bounty_board#How_much_success, the bounty board has resulted in a grand total of USD $215 being given to the WMF, tho I haven't seen any WMF report that these funds have been received (nor would I expect them to write a report for such a small amount of money).

Misplaced Pages:NOPAY makes an exception for these systems, as if it is appropriate to permit for-pay editing if arrangements are done at WP:Reward board between pseudonymous people, but harass people when for-pay editing is arranged via http://freelancer.com/ or private negotiations between real legal entities.

Support

1. I would expect all the people who've been taking a de-facto one red cent rule on payment corrupting Misplaced Pages edits to support this, or, if not, explain how small payments to a charity is fundamentally different than small payments to one's self. Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
2. They has long since outlived their usefulness Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
3. The board could be made workable in principle, but it has had virtually no use/interest in practice. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm not sure what the first sentence has to do with the problem presented in this RfC. But, if someone is payed by an external company to make their Misplaced Pages page look appropriate, then that is an obvious conflict of interest (but if that editor would improve the article strictly following our 5P, then there would not be a problem). It is however appropriate when one editor is offering an incentive to expand significantly on a page. The latter may have also a conflict of interest and may turn it into an advertisement (in which case, WP:COI would come into play, and likely WP:NPOV, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT), whereas in the case the editor does not have a conflict of interest, it would be a neutral improvement. So yes, it does certainly not need to be inappropriate.

   For example, editor A is working for company A Inc., and is offering money to improve the article ], and editor B, who is not working for A Inc. but for B Inc., would improve that article, then there is no problem with a conflict of interest (except that editor A obviously wants the article to improve, but does not want to improve the article as to show his preferred form - he may find a nasty lawsuit, neutrally presented and properly referenced, being in the 'final' product). If that same editor A would pay to improve on article on B Inc., and finds editor B, who is working for B Inc., then B would have a conflict of interest (but if B would improve the article strictly following our 5P, then there would be no problem with that either!). --Dirk Beetstra 13:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

   I agree with you that people can edit neutrally when paid. This RFC is about contradictory language/policies/etc relating to COI. Assuming that the COI guideline is kept, this part of the policy is ridiculous: "Generally speaking, the Reward Board is an exception to the above cautions." We should not make exceptions for financial agreements that are made on Misplaced Pages. We should not even be encouraging financial agreements to be made on Misplaced Pages, where the parties are likely to be pseudonymous, and the WMF is not going break its policies in order to help someone claim the reward or bounty. I think we should disable these now, and point people to freelancer.com, MTurk, etc and encourage people to monitor those sites. John Vandenberg 23:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

   It is then probably in the wording - I do agree that WP:COI needs rewording (I have answered some posts above regarding that, where sentences are ambiguous - also posted to WT:COI to get them rewritten in a clearer language as they obviously can be read in a wrong way), and maybe pieces need to be removed altogether. I think my main problem is with your 'as if it is appropriate to permit for-pay editing if arrangements are done at WP:Reward board between pseudonymous people' - you seem to suggest that you do not believe that it can be appropriate, every case is different - it is however a stupidly open loophole waiting for abuse. --Dirk Beetstra 05:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

   My intention was to juxtapose our acceptance of these boards vs our historical position regarding paid editing (e.g. arranged at freelancer.com). IMO both have the same potential for NPOV problems - our reward/bounty boards have the added problem of permitting contract negotiation on a wiki; otoh, offwiki negotiations are less visible to us. John Vandenberg 07:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

   I agree that WP:COI can not prevent all forms of conflict of interest. We can detect quite some obvious cases (even by bot, and there will also be false-positives there), and of all those obvious cases, many are not a problem. Others are not detected, and also of those, many will not be a problem, others will. The self-promotion ones are often easy to detect and find, and easy to address (many editors 'out' themselves (further explanation removed per WP:BEANS)). The indirect forms of COI (generally you can group them as 'paid editing' - whether it is hiring a Search Engine Optimization company, or paid editing in a form of 'write this article nicely like this for me and I give you 100 dollar') are difficult to catch, and when that paid editing is pushing to have something look in the way the organisation wants (and often that is the case) that goes against our core policies (and not only WP:NPOV). The case you are attacking here is often a minor conflict of interest - which does not necessarily make it correct, nor makes it finding problematic conflict of interest cases more easy. I think I do agree with your thoughts about this, I do however not agree with your current wording as it is in this proposal. --Dirk Beetstra 08:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

   (always a pleasure; thanks for discussing; over and out) John Vandenberg 12:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

2. Rather than shuttering the Reward Board, we could easily make it a place to just trade editing tasks and prohibit monetary compensation. People get paid on this site to edit all the time as part of their work or motivated by their own business. Reward Board is a murky validation that such practices are within scope of COI policy. That said, people getting paid to edit can be neutral, and should still be judged on their content not their background. Ocaasi 03:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Discuss

• I think that the current reward to translate Bitcoin to any language is a good example of a pragmatic motive and effect - clearly, making that meme available to consumers speaking other languages will tend to further the profits of the inventors of this ingenious way of making money out of thin air. I can't call it "wrong", exactly, but I'm not fond of the advertising-driven motivation either. Wnt (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think we would be better served by framing the issue as a compelling COI versus a minor COI. Even though the bounty board handles cash, the COI of its editors is not enough to be routinely disruptive. King4057 (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

  Have you been following the discussions above? There are plenty of editors who will not admit any such thing as a "minor COI"--the logical extension being that if paid a single dollar (or Euro, etc.) the editor receiving payment is incapable of editing with the best interests of the encyclopedia and NPOV in mind. Jclemens (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

  I think if someone edits in exchange for a donation to WMF or is paid $5 and the funding party is not themselves in a COI, that is - at best - a minor COI. When the funding party has a COI and they're paying $7,000 on a results-based contingency basis, that's different. Yes, I think the amount of money, the COI of the funding party and the circumstances make a difference on the likelihood a COI will be disruptive/bias and therefore the most appropriate way to handle. King4057 (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Although the Reward and Bounty Boards are somewhat tangential to the core issues, their existence is often cited in broader discussions. I agree that it might be time to move they be marked historical. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

View by Ocaasi

I have a few principles I'd like to lay out:

1. Misplaced Pages strives for neutrality in all aspects of articles.
2. Editors are not required to be unbiased, although their writing must be.
3. Getting paid to edit, or having a direction financial stake in an article, is always a conflict of interest.
4. Having a conflict of interest requires extra attention to neutrality.
5. Best practices for COI editors involves plainly stating where and why you have a conflict of interest and seeking the input of other neutral, uninvolved editors.
6. Paid editors, or those with a direct financial stake, do work on this site daily.
7. There are both paid and unpaid editors whose advocacy is a persistent problem.
8. There are gaps in article creation and article content, as well as inaccurate, misleading or outdated information that COI editors have a particular interest in correcting. Done neutrally, fixing those gaps and inaccuracies significantly benefits the encyclopedia.
9. Current policy is ambiguous in strongly discouraging editors with a COI from editing while also listing non-controversial edits which read as a formal exception to a prohibition which doesn't actually exist in the policy.
10. A strict prohibition on directly editing articles would only drive it underground. Our focus should be on bringing it into the light and encouraging best practices.

Thus my recommendations:

1. WP:COI should be kept as a guideline, because it provides useful guidance and describes current editing practices. It should neither be promoted to Policy or demoted to Essay status, since there is no clear consenus that is either definitive or superfluous.
2. WP:COIN should be kept as a noticeboard, since it serves a useful function in examining COI editors
3. WP:COI should be expanded to identify specific situations where editing is and is not controversial.
4. WP:WikiProject Cooperation should be utilized regularly and seek to create a cadre of able helpers who can assist and review COI editors.
5. Added after (support #3 and oppose #1). We should hold a more directed RfC with the following questions: 1) Should WP:COI be demoted to essay status; 2) Should COI/N be closed; 3) Should COI editors be required to declare their conflict of interest; 4) Should paid editors be required to declare their conflict of interest; 5) Should paid editors be allowed to make substantial edits to articles if they have declared their conflict of interest; 6) Should paid editors be allowed to make substantial edits to articles if they seek uninvolved editors to review their changes; 7) Should COI editors be judged solely on the basis of their contributions rather than their background

And some ideas for discussion:

1. Paid editors should not be allowed to make substantial edit to articles, unless they make a clear declaration on their userpage and relevant talk pages disclosing their COI, and involve at least one neutral uninvolved editor to preview and/or review their edits. Not doing so should be handled the same way vandalism is, with a series of increasing warnings leading to a block.
2. Jimbo should stop telling people they can't edit directly if they're paid and instead start telling people that if they want to be treated seriously they follow our best practices for COI editors.
3. The Foundation could consider appointing COI liasons who are available to assist COI editors from major corporations. OTRS already does this if requested. WikiProject Cooperation's Paid Editor Help page does so informally. #Misplaced Pages-en-help does so 'every single day, as a matter of course.
4. The reward board could prohibit financial compensation and only allow neutral editing "trades".

Support

1. Ocaasi 03:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
2. I disagree with your principle 3, as I've made abundantly clear elsewhere, but that's not enough to stop me from endorsing what appears to be largely a realistic and common-sense approach to the issue. Having worked in the corporate world for 15+ years, I'd be willing to help out with this on OTRS if I weren't so busy with other Wiki-work. Jclemens (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Well presented. I like the idea of a neutral uninvolved editor review I just don't know where you will find one on the campaign "trail". To often things happen under the cover of night and only involved editors, trained by experience, are watching. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I can agree with some of this, and disagree with other parts of it. COI editors, paid or otherwise, should be barred from mainspace editing, and Jimbo should redouble his efforts in this regard. Fladrif (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

View by Herostratus

Well, let's clarify a little by talking about some different classes of COI editors.

• A: Professional public relations agents engaged in "reputation management" for a client, or employees of an organization engaged in "reputation management" for that organization, on the clock and as an assigned job task, and other situations that are extremely similar.
• B: All other paid editors, such a academics (or other people) writing on the clock (technically they are being paid while writing Misplaced Pages), people being paid by a grant to contribute scholarly material to Misplaced Pages, and so forth.
• C: All editors who are unpaid, but with a COI: They work for an organization and have strong feelings about it. Their cousin is the band's bass player. They live in that town. They think this guru is the wisest man ever. They hate that country. They want people to understand how cool this game is. They can't stand the mayor. Yadda yadda yadda and on and on.

The point I want to make is that people in class A are just very very different from the other situations and that's the class I want to focus on here. They have specific agenda and they are generally clever and subtle about achieving it: it is their profession, after all. They are clever at slanting things so that you won't even know they're slanted, and they will run rings around amateurs like you and me, or wear us out, or engage in whatever other tactics will get their meal ticket punched. They will be able to quote Misplaced Pages policy chapter and verse, they will seduce the weak-minded among you into believing that that they really are just nice guys, or if appropriate they will turn mean. It's all billable. And I have seen this in action.

If they don't do these things, they are incompetent practitioners of their profession, or unethical practitioners. The Public Relations Society of America Member Code of Ethics says "A member shall act in the best interests of the client or employer, even subordinating the member's personal interests", and a public relations professional who doesn't do this is no better than a defense lawyer who admits that his client is guilty. Let's give these folks the respect of assuming that they're not incompetent or unethical.

(I grant that these people will write good material at times, but purely for tactical effect (to appear as good Wikipedians) or by coincidence (it just happens that this particular client really is a benign entity), and the policing work required is very onerous.)

Besides the damage to our articles, there are three big problems with allowing these people into the henhouse:

• It'll be ruinous to our reputation when it gets out that our articles are written (in part) by paid corporate flacks and we allow and even encourage this. Ruinous.
• It's utterly against the volunteer paradigm and very destructive to morale. I'm not willing to engage in contentious discussions with overt and open professional paid agents as a hobby. I bet a lot of people aren't.
• It's corrupting to our processes for professionals to be involved in governance issues in which they have a financial stake.

I'm not making any suggestions (here) for solutions, so even if you're of the "well, yes, but nothing can be done about it" camp you can still sign on as agreeing that there's a problem here.

Support

1. Herostratus (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Group A includes paid political operatives. Their Mortgage, etc. is paid for by their candidate, not by Misplaced Pages. Where would your allegiance be? ```Buster Seven Talk 13:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Any policy or guideline will have grey area in who it covers, and difficulties in enforcement. However we should not allow these to sidetrack us from stating principles and best practices. I have no inclination to argue with someone who is paid to not yield. Such is contrary to an open encyclopedia. Class A editing is against the foundation of the encyclopedia and we should state that in uncompromising terms. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
4. Support. Rivertorch (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
5. I'd maybe not say "ruinous" but the policing is definitely onerous. People who can devote working hours could spend hours daily pushing gently, cajoling, reasoning extensively etc. It could be incredibly time-consuming if we have significant numbers of these situations. To Jclemens, Class A are paid to achieve a result so might be less able to compromise, will also have alot more time on their hands than volunteers, including class C. I need to see some more test cases myself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
6. The language is a bit hyperbolic, but I have to register support here. Tis is one of the few views so far that draws thoughtful distinctions and employs the sort of reasoning appropriate to a serious, respectable reference work. MastCell  21:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
7. Support - If you've ever had a paid (or similarly motivated) editor oppose your work, the 3 bullet points are obvious. Smallbones (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
8. Writegeist (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Although I like your three classes of COI editors, I think you overstate the problem or the direction for a solution when it comes to public relations professionals. The solution is to work with these individuals, some of whom are acting in good faith and bringing legitimate complaints (see Corporate Representatives for Ethical Misplaced Pages Engagement). What needs to happen, IMO, is threefold: 1) require disclosure from public relations officials; 2) advertise and quickly respond to the {edit request} system; 3) promote education, mentoring, and best practices through WP:WikiProject Cooperation. Ocaasi 14:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment

1. There's quite a few declared paid editors out there who seem to work well through the request edit system, which seems a good way to do this. Babakathy (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

   I understand what you say with I'm not willing to engage in contentious discussions with overt and open professional paid agents as a hobby, I more or less agree - it is an unfair balance in effort. However there has to be a mechanism to work with overt and open guys or we drive them underground. I don't enjoy having to engage in contentious discussions with people pushing pseudoscience and having to dig up all the refs to show them their pet theory was debunked years ago (yeah, WP:RANDY sums it up) but what can you do?

   Seriously, I get your frustration but what can we do? Babakathy (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

   My experience (during the current nomination campaign) is that the request edit system is a sham and does not achieve its intended goal. Long envolved edits with markups and refs, probably molded by a campaign team, are suggested and almost immediately, without discussion of any kind, entered into the article by some supportive vassal. Completely unbeknownst to our reader who assumes the article is written by volunteers, not employees of the articles subject. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

2. I'm with you on the classification of editors, and the thoughts on PR professionals' abilities and goals, but I'm not sure I buy the bullets:
   • Ruinous? Really? Let's be serious here. We're Misplaced Pages, and we have a reputation for being a quick and great orientation to certain topics, as well as a great collection of links to the sources which nearly everyone agrees should be consulted by anyone for anything truly important. I think "ruinous" is hyperbolic; my own take is that such influence is 1) obvious to anyone with a clue--if there's a benefit to be gained by influencing Misplaced Pages, people and organizations will try it, and 2) the reputation of Misplaced Pages depends not on individual editors' actions, but the community's response when improprieties are discovered.
   • No, paid and volunteer are not opposites. I've worked in multiple fire departments where the volunteers and paid staff got along just fine, because they all worked together to a common goal.
   • I do not see how the influence of people in your category 'A' corrupts governance any more than that of people in category 'C'. It's possible that such is the case, but from where I sit on Arbcom, I've gained a newfound appreciation for how destructive nationalism (to pick one example) is, in a way that I really never experienced as an editor who never touched such areas on purpose.

   At any rate, it's a very thought-provoking statement, and a good assessment of the landscape, even if I disagree with your conclusions. Thanks for posting it. Jclemens (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

3. While the delineation helps, since you aren't clear about your solution except for the hen house comment, more information needed. I do note that the one time I most consistently find Misplaced Pages very slow or overloaded is Monday mornings, so there is no doubt a lot of people are editing at work. But that does not mean they are doing it for work. Though today bosses have the software to catch them if they choose. Misplaced Pages statistics to show if that is my imagination, and also to see which kind of articles get worked on most on Monday mornings (or Tuesdays after holidays) would be interesting! CarolMooreDC 15:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Second view by BeCritical

COI is a violation of the maxim focus on the edits, not the editor. The COI guideline has some legitimate purpose to warn inexperienced COI users, but this functionality should be made part of the NPOV policy, as a paragraph describing how COI can lead to NPOV violations. The guideline and its noticeboard should be eliminated, because the only legitimate use of COI is to discourage non-NPOV edits, and that is properly handled by the NPOV noticeboard. B——C_ritical 21:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. What is a non-POV problem covered by COI? It's a serious question. Find me a compelling one and I'll retract my support for this. Jclemens (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   1) Spammers have a conflict of interest, they spam their links to earn money with it. They do not necessarily have a non-neutral point of view on an article, they even spam links to articles where there is only a slight overlap with the subject of the article. They WP:SPAM to earn money, not to change the point-of-view of an article. --Dirk Beetstra 05:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   See for example diff. Editor does not incur a POV, however, declares a conflict of interest here. --Dirk Beetstra 05:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   The spam itself is an NPOV problem for the article, especially per WEIGHT, and anyway we have WP:SPAM. B——C_ritical 06:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, but a) the main violation is a violation of WP:NOT, not a violation of WP:NPOV (which for spam often is just minor), and b) since we have WP:NOT (and WP:NPOV), we do not need WP:SPAM, which is also just a guideline. And if you say, that spam is an NPOV problem, maybe we should then also degrade WP:NOT as everything covered by WP:NOT can be explained as a form of WP:NPOV. --Dirk Beetstra 06:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   A Reductio ad absurdum rebuttal doesn't apply when no such argument has been made. I'm saying that this guideline would be better folded into a single paragraph of NPOV. B——C_ritical 08:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   What I am saying, Becritical, is that WP:COI is wider than only WP:NPOV violations, it can also be WP:NOT violations - some cases are even more a violation of other core principles of Misplaced Pages then of WP:NPOV. You are suggesting that WP:COI can be replaced by incorporation in other policies and guidelines, I am saying that it has a merit on its own as combining certain principles from several policies and guidelines into one specific type of problem - diffusing it all out to other policies and guidelines is not going to take away the problem that some editors do have a conflict of interest. --Dirk Beetstra 08:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   I see what you mean. Then rewrite it as an explanation of other guidelines, and eliminate the tone of harassment. Don't focus on me wanting to delete it. Focus on the fact that it is often used to harass. The entire focus of COI is flawed because you have this "how much of a sucker" guideline out there to catch the honest folks and reward the dishonest. Just why should people declare a COI? Is there any other reason than that they can then be harassed and put under a microscope? There's something to be said for having other guidelines applied to COI specifically, and surely there's room for such an essay. But since COI is used to harass, and there is already due warning that such behavior is not acceptable, either something has to be done about the harassment, or the guideline ought to be deleted. B——C_ritical 08:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   Can you show me some evidence for 'the fact that it is often used to harass'? Most editors with a conflict of interest are not even notified of it (even those of whom edits are clearly in violation of our 5P), and if they are notified of it, I am not sure if that is harassment anyway. So, it must be those who do not have a conflict of interest but a perceived conflict of interest that are being notified that they have a conflict of interest that are the harassed ones. --Dirk Beetstra 10:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   See the tip of the iceberg which was the recent ArbCom case. And I only know what I've observed myself, Jclemens is in a much better position to answer that. B——C_ritical 19:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   'the tip of the iceberg', unless you can show me a significant number of the cases where WP:COI is used to harass, and show me that that is a significant portion of all the cases where editors are not harassed but who do very likely have a conflict of interest (I think that we have ~5 edits to mainspace with a very obvious conflict of interest per hour). Yes, you are right, WP:COI is used to harass editors - but the problem is not WP:COI, it is the POV of the harassing editor. And that harassing editor does not need WP:COI to harass, they will push their POV with or without WP:COI. --Dirk Beetstra 05:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

   Sorry, but claiming that SPAM violates NOT instead of NPOV is uncompelling. Spam, by its very nature, attempts to unduly influence one, most often to promote something. The reason spam is part of NOT is because it is so blatantly and incontrovertably part of NPOV that it's essentially a speedy removal criterion. But by all means, try again. Anyone else give me a COI problem unrelated to NPOV? Jclemens (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   I do see your point, but this runs the risk of coming to a point, that everything harming the encyclopedia boils down to a POV-problem, possibly even a large part of vandalism is a POV problem. I could come up with cases where a spammer in a way actually makes the page more neutral by including their spam. One often sees that on list-pages, WP:SPAMHOLE/WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS applies there to avoid it, but it would be a stretch to invoke WP:NPOV as a reason not to add the spam in such cases. --Dirk Beetstra 05:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strongly oppose. Fladrif (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Strongly oppose. The conflict of interest, to me, lies between our reader and the paid editor. We need many safeguards in place as tools to protect the readers capacity to view an un-biased, un-orchestrated article. With the subtle nuances and interplay of policies and guidelines and varied editor interpretations, more than a screwdriver is needed. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Strongly oppose. To me this is a matter of trust. Readers trust we do our level best to ensure a NPOV encyclopedia; not many readers would trust a PR firm hired by a politician to keep that politician's article neutral (even if other editors might take a crack at editing from time to time). Volunteer editors trust that we enter discussions with reasonable people, but a person paid to never change his mind is hardly discussing the matter in good faith. The COI guideline is an essential part of carrying out the mission of the project. --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

   Let me put it this way to the people who oppose this: you are advocating for harassment. There is no other legitimate use of COI than to instruct people about NPOV. I recently noticed that an admin was banned for such harassment, and probably some of you should be too if you are advocating so strongly for the harassment protocol which is COI. B——C_ritical 02:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   It seems rather absolutist to suggest that anyone who opposes your view on this issue is actually advocating for harassment. In fact, many of us who oppose your policy idea actually strive to be nice people. Some of us even like kittens and puppies, and oppose harassing people. Endorsement of a policy does not imply endorsement jackbooted thuggery in its enforcement (and I am not at all clear how your critique applies to a guideline). --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   I agree that this one-size-fits all attack and absolutist condemnation of "people who oppose this" is contrary to the collaborative spirit of WP encapsolated in AGF. Protecting an article, and thereby the reader of that article, is not harassment. Pointing out that an editors allegiance elsewhere detracts from his ability to edit in a balance manner is not harassment. Paid operatives harass the articles that they shape for the good of their customer/employer/candidate. Paid operatives harass the Misplaced Pages readers who come here to get correct and truthful information. Those that advocate COI as only a tool for harassment are restricting their own capacity to see and understand other uses. Their outlook straight jackets their fellow editors into mean-spirited thugs, up to no good. The opposite is closer to the truth. ```Buster Seven Talk 08:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   Well, Hitler liked puppies :P What I'm saying here is that any good that this guideline might or might not do needs to be balanced against the harassment. We shouldn't be accepting a significant amount of harm with the excuse that good is being done too. If having all the other policies and guidelines explained in one place as relating to COIs does so much good, then address how all the harm is going to be eliminated. First lets acknowledge the significant harm that is being done. If there is no effort to eliminate the harassment, then there is no excuse to keep the guideline. B——C_ritical 09:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

4. Strongly oppose. WP:NPOV is not the only problem that editors can show when violating WP:COI. Again, according to the view you show here, all guidelines should be removed, as they are all dependent on the 5P in the end. --Dirk Beetstra 05:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   You failed to find even one example above. And the reason for removing this guideline is that it's intended, and functions as, a vehicle for harassment to the extent it is not a simple application of NPOV (too simple for its own page). B——C_ritical 06:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   for the record, I strongly disagree that it is 'intented for harassment'. --Dirk Beetstra 06:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   And do you really believe, that if we would not have WP:COI in any form, that the editors who do have a conflict of interest would not be harassed since they do have a conflict of interest? I would even argue, that if WP:COI would enable editors to edit with a conflict of interest (which it does; discouraging is not the same as disallowing!), that that is a stronger reason to warn and possibly sanction editors who use it as a reason to harass editors then without having that guideline. --Dirk Beetstra 06:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   One sentence in NPOV would be enough to make harassment an actionable offense. B——C_ritical

   We have WP:HOUND for that. --Dirk Beetstra 08:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

5. Strongly oppose.--В и к и T 09:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
6. Some good thoughts there, but complete elimination is going too far. We need a revised shrunk wp:coi to provide guidance and basics.

Comment

View by North8000

WP:COI starts with 2 excellent sentences, including an astoundingly good definition of a COI. After that it and what it has created is a mess. It has a second conflicting definition of a COI which basically says that everybody with an interest which poses a potential COI is a "COI". Then, when people do the right thing and disclose such a potential COI they get wrongfully branded / scarlet-lettered as a "COI" using the second definition, thus discouraging what we need most which is disclosure of such interests. And then it wades into the hopeless task of trying to give detailed instructions that cover the widely varying possibilities.

Solution:

1. Nuke/delete wp:coi down to those first two sentences.
2. Say that they should not do any edits influenced by a COI as defined. I.E. where the other interest not only exists, but overrides the good of Misplaced Pages.
3. Add a paragraph defining paid editing or editing as a paid operative as a certain COI and say that it should not be done.
4. Add a paragraph defining commercial interests (that the editor would financially benefit from the editing if the subject company/school/band/performer/author/professor etc. does better) which present a high likely likelihood of a COI
5. Strongly ask (or require) that editors clearly disclose (and keep updated) the above specific types of interest at the article.

The end! Disclosure itself will significantly affect everything that follows in a good way. North8000 (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Rewrite built from the first two sentences. Also, very important to include mention and definition of paid political operatives not just paid editing and paid advocacy. All 3 are considerably different. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
2. I too think that the policy has been poorly worded after the first two sentences. It needs to rewritten. --Anbu121 (talk me) 11:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I changed it per / based on your thought. North8000 (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, language can be optimised, but you are talking about the editors who are abusing WP:COI for their own POV. Thát is what should be addressed, having a conflict of interest is not forbidding you to edit. --Dirk Beetstra 05:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment

1. I agree with much of what you wrote, but we shouldn't just stub WP:COI. Instead, create a draft page in your userspace or at a subpage of the guideline and try and come up with a better alternative. Meanwhile, WP:COI should remain an active guideline. I do think that a paragraph defining paid editing and/or commercial interests is a step in the right direction. I would be open to discussing mandatory disclosure for specific types of interests. Ocaasi 14:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

COI editors are "meatpuppets" (suggestion by Wnt)

All editors who are paid by an organization which evaluates their work, or are members of a religious or other organization which is watching their edits and would be in a position to contemplate disciplinary action against them within the organization depending on what they say, are what Misplaced Pages has called "WP:Meatpuppets", because they are recruited to edit based on outside associations. If the community decides to treat paid/organizational editors entirely the same way as other editors, then the "meatpuppet" policy should be dropped, and editors such as friends, spouses, family members, roommates, etc., should not be restricted from taking positions partial to the people they know, just as they would be permitted to do if paid. The contrapositive likewise applies.

Support

1. Wnt (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
2. support. --Dirk Beetstra 10:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
3. support. --В и к и T 16:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
4. Support. Exactly correct. Paid COI editors fit the definition of WP:Meatpupper exactly. Far from being a straw man argument, Wnt has hit the nail on the head. Those advocating for abandonment COI and COIN rather than giving them real teeth might as well throw the prohibition on meatpuppetry out the window as well. Fladrif (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
5. An excellent point. We should not allow meatpuppets just because they get a paycheck. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
6. Hammer. Nail. Head. Writegeist (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Unworkable, ABF. Meatpuppetry is a legitimate challenge to individualized recruitment efforts. This is a straw man argument. Jclemens (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Confusing - eliminating the prohibition on meatpuppets would likely gut the prohibition on sockpuppets as well, which almost nobody would want. Smallbones (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   In writing this, I didn't specify which way to go with this, only to recognize the connection. The contrapositive, that if you can't give up the policy on "meatpuppets" then you shouldn't give up the COI policy, is also a resolution. You might even try to draw some less pure boundary, such as restricting the "meatpuppet" policy only to people using the same IP address. But to my way of thinking, there is little conceptual difference between a person holding multiple Misplaced Pages accounts on his own, or paying or otherwise monitoring multiple Misplaced Pages users whose actions are accountable to him. Wnt (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   If you are simply saying that many COI editors are essentially acting as meatpuppets, and should be prohibited as such, then I'll change my oppose to support. I do prefer direct statements to "if you do this, then we have to do that". Smallbones (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

3. Oppose - for the simple reason that asserting that a tail is a leg does not make horses have five legs. We might just as "logically" state that anyone who is paid by a corporation is automatically a "vandal" if that is where we wish to head. Collect (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose. The policy on meatpuppets is flawed, of course, and should be scrapped just like COI because it focuses on the editors and not the edits. So I'd agree but for the last sentence. B——C_ritical 02:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment

1. He's got a point. If it's okay to pay someone to edit on my behalf, why isn't it okay to just ask someone to edit on my behalf? Tom Harrison 18:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   Getting paid creates an obligation to the person that paid them. Unless the near-zero chance occurs that the payer's orders were to to further the interest of Misplaced Pages, such is inherently an actual COI. North8000 (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

2. COI and Meatpuppet have a lot in common, not the least of which is that ArbCom turns a blind eye to both more often than not. But that hardly means that both should not be vigorously enforced. Fladrif (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   Meatpuppetry, as part of WP:SOCK, is a policy. WP:COI is a guideline. As much as you might wish that COI was on the same footing as SOCK, ignoring the difference does not help further the conversation about whether there should be a difference. Jclemens (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

   Paid or even ideological meatpuppetry seems to fall squarely within the Sockpuppetry policy: "While Misplaced Pages assumes good faith, especially for new users, recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Misplaced Pages is prohibited. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Misplaced Pages solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. Sanctions have been applied to editors of longer standing who have not, in the opinion of Misplaced Pages's administrative bodies, consistently exercised independent judgement." Perhaps we could amend the policy to make this absolutely clear, or we could make this absolutely clear as part of a new COI policy, or both. Would you object to that? Smallbones (talk) 04:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

   @Jclements - Bullshit. This RFC is about soliciting comment on what policy should be. To repeatedly parrot "but COI is just a guideline not a policy" misses the entire point of this exercise. If you think that the point of this is to simply codify what current practice is, then this RFC is pointless and one has to wonder what ArbCom had in mind in calling for it. If you think that this RFC should be confined to that, then get out of the way, and let those editors who are actually serious about addressing how to deal responsibly with COI at Misplaced Pages - which is a serious problem that current procedures and policies do not deal with in a manner reasonably calculated to address the problems in a serious manner. COI should be a policy not a guideline. It should be dealt with swiftly and seriously, and if that was done, disputes over COI would not fester and devolve such that ArbCom has to deal with it - badly and inconsistently. If you're not going to be part of the solution, you're definitely part of the problem. Fladrif (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

   If you're going to call for equal enforcement (or rather... criticize a dispute-resolution body for not enforcing both equally) then the current states of SOCK and COI are indeed relevant. You weren't talking about how it should be, you were criticizing others for not treating the same when they are not, in fact, the same. If you'd like to restate your issue in a forward looking manner, then indeed my response to your criticism would be moot. Also, please try and be more civil. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

3. I think this is a clever argument, but ultimately misconstrues the intent of WP:MEAT, which is designed to prevent mass recruitment in order to create the appearance of support for a proposition where none exists. COI, at least when it deals with paid editors, often applies to a single representative or employee from a company, who is not trying to create such an impression. Although they may be promoting a particular approach at an article, provided they declare their conflict of interest and attempt to act neutrally, they are not acting as meatpuppets but good faith editors, and should be treated as such. There is of course a line that could be crossed which would turn COI editing into meatpuppetry, for example if a company appointed 8 people to comment at an article. However, if they all declared their conflict of interest and acted neutrally, even that would not necessarily breach WP:MEAT, although it would likely be seen as disruptive. Ocaasi 13:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

"provided they declare their conflict of interest " as you say above is a very important part of your argument. We can deal with transparent paid editing and COIs, but right now it is not transparent. If COI declarations were specifically written into policy, I'd be more inclined to agree with you. Your argument about the "intent of WP:MEAT" however doesn't convince me. It does not allow an individual meatpuppet or a limited number of meatpuppets - it prohibits ALL meatpuppets. From a straightforward reading of the policy, most readers might generalize to something like "The important thing is to edit as yourself and exercise independent judgement." That general message has been consistently included in many places on Misplaced Pages, including at WP:COI but some editors consistently claim that it is not clear. Isn't it time to make it precisely and directly clear and put it into an enforceable policy? Smallbones (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

View by Smallbones

We need to focus on things we can agree on - and I'm sure there are many things we do agree on, including types of COI editing that are so egregious that they have to be banned and how we can and how we can't enforce bans, as well as types of COI editing that are not problematic and should be explicitly allowed. This should be policy. There will of course be areas that we can't agree, this should be the area where the COI guideline (perhaps rewritten) should come into play. So I suggest we restart this RFC, 1st on how to write a very minimal policy that will explicitly outline some things that are banned and some things that are allowed, and then an RFC on rewriting the COI guidelines (given a new minimal policy).

For example, I might suggest that:

• Administrators and arbitrators are explicitly banned from participating on topics where they have received payments from people asking for specific decisions.

and

• Academics are specifically allowed to quote their own published works without identifying themselves as having a conflict of interest.

Folks may respond that these cases are absolutely clear, so that we don't need to identify something so obvious. But are they clear to everybody? to newby editors? Do we already have rules that explicitly cover these situations? The ArbCom has said that the COI rules are unclear, so let us please give them the cases where a consensus thinks that the rules should be clear to everybody. It will do no good to say that all COI rules should be abandoned - there will never be a consensus for that. Neither does it make sense to lump all types of COI together - there are too many types, with too many different consequences. So we need to sort COI types into "egregious" (banned by policy), "unclear" (guided by the guideline), and "reasonable" (allowed by policy).

Support

1. As proposer, for new, more structured RFC (not necessarily for the examples cited) Smallbones (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
2. B——C_ritical 04:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Yes. I'd rather a set of people took some time and set out the issues better, using this RfC as a source for a better-worded one. I'm finding that non-shared vocabulary has muddled the waters quite a bit here, and that there's probably a lot more agreement than is evident in this RfC so far, if only editors could agree on terms and assumptions first. 04:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Comment